Royalty-Enforcing Architectures like those on Solana (via Metaplex Core) or Ethereum (via Seaport 1.5 with blocklists) prioritize creator revenue by making royalties a non-negotiable, programmatic feature of the smart contract. This results in predictable, guaranteed income for creators, as seen with Magic Eden's enforced marketplace on Solana, which has processed billions in volume while maintaining creator payouts. The trade-off is reduced liquidity and potential user friction, as traders may migrate to platforms with lower fees.
LABS
Comparisons
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures vs. Optional Royalty Models
A technical comparison of programmatic royalty enforcement using smart contract hooks versus optional, off-chain models. Analyzes trade-offs for marketplace builders, protocol architects, and creators.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Royalty Enforcement Dilemma
A technical breakdown of mandatory on-chain enforcement versus flexible, market-driven royalty models for NFT protocols.
Optional Royalty Models, championed by marketplaces like Blur and protocols like ERC-721C, treat royalties as a social contract, allowing buyers and sellers to decide payment. This approach maximizes trader incentives and short-term liquidity, evidenced by Blur's ~80% market share on Ethereum during its incentive programs. The trade-off is volatile and often diminished creator revenue, shifting the economic burden to primary sales or alternative monetization.
The key trade-off: If your priority is guaranteed creator sustainability and protocol-level integrity, choose a royalty-enforcing architecture. If you prioritize maximizing trader adoption, liquidity, and market-driven fee discovery, an optional model is more suitable. The decision fundamentally hinges on whether you value enforceable economic rights or unconstrained market efficiency.
tldr-summary
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures vs. Optional Royalty Models
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for protocol architects deciding on creator monetization policy.
01
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures
Guaranteed Creator Revenue: Hard-coded fees on secondary sales (e.g., 5-10%) are non-negotiable. This matters for high-value art collections (e.g., Art Blocks) and professional creator ecosystems where predictable income is critical for sustainability.
02
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures
Stronger Creator Alignment & Loyalty: Protocols like Manifold Studio and Zora Protocol use enforcement to attract top-tier artists. This matters for building a premium brand and long-term creator partnerships, as seen with platforms like Foundation.
03
Optional Royalty Models
Higher Liquidity & Trader Adoption: Marketplaces like Blur and Magic Eden (on Solana) saw >300% volume growth by making fees optional. This matters for speculative NFT ecosystems and gamified finance (GameFi) where low friction and high-frequency trading are paramount.
04
Optional Royalty Models
Market-Driven Flexibility: Allows for dynamic fee structures (e.g., tipping, collector rewards) and adapts to competitive pressures. This matters for mass-market consumer apps and cross-chain aggregators (like Tensor) that prioritize user choice and composability over rigid rules.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Royalty-Enforcing vs. Optional Royalty Architectures
Direct comparison of NFT marketplace and protocol-level royalty models.
| Architectural Feature | Royalty-Enforcing Model | Optional Royalty Model |
|---|---|---|
Protocol-Level Enforcement | ||
Creator Royalty Guarantee | 100% | 0-100% (Market-Dependent) |
Primary Sales Fee | 5-15% | 0-2.5% |
Secondary Market Compliance | Enforced via smart contract | Marketplace policy |
Integration Complexity | High (requires custom contracts) | Low (standard ERC-721/1155) |
Major Protocol Examples | Manifold, Zora Protocol, Highlight | OpenSea, Blur, LooksRare |
Developer Adoption Friction | High | Low |
pros-cons-a
A Technical Breakdown for Protocol Architects
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures: Pros & Cons
Choosing between mandatory and optional royalties impacts creator revenue, marketplace liquidity, and protocol-level design. Here are the key technical trade-offs.
01
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures: Pro
Guaranteed Creator Revenue: Protocols like Ethereum (ERC-721C) and Solana (Metaplex Core) implement on-chain enforcement, ensuring creators like Yuga Labs receive royalties on every secondary sale. This is critical for funding long-term project development and community incentives.
02
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures: Con
Market Fragmentation Risk: Strict enforcement can push volume to alternative marketplaces that bypass rules (e.g., Blur on Ethereum). This fragments liquidity, complicates indexer logic (for Dune Analytics, The Graph), and can lead to a worse user experience across aggregators.
03
Optional Royalty Models: Pro
Maximized Liquidity & Trader Choice: Models like Magic Eden's optional royalties or OpenSea's operator filter removal attract high-volume traders by minimizing fees. This is optimal for protocols prioritizing pure trading volume and composability with DeFi apps like NFTX or BendDAO.
04
Optional Royalty Models: Con
Erosion of Creator Economics: Without enforcement, royalty payments can drop to near zero (e.g., sub-1% on many collections). This undermines the PFP business model, forcing creators to rely solely on mint revenue and shifting value extraction to traders and marketplace operators.
pros-cons-b
ARCHITECTURAL TRADE-OFFS
Optional Royalty Models: Pros & Cons
A data-driven comparison of mandatory vs. flexible royalty enforcement, crucial for protocol architects defining creator economics and marketplace strategy.
01
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures (Pros)
Guaranteed Creator Revenue: Enforces on-chain royalties via protocol-level logic (e.g., EIP-2981 with enforcement hooks). This matters for high-value art collections (e.g., Art Blocks) and creator-centric ecosystems where predictable income is non-negotiable.
02
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures (Cons)
Reduced Liquidity & User Choice: Can fragment liquidity by forcing users onto compliant marketplaces. Protocols like OpenSea's Operator Filter saw significant pushback and were sunset due to reduced volume. This matters if maximizing secondary market activity is your primary KPI.
03
Optional Royalty Models (Pros)
Maximized Market Efficiency: Allows marketplaces like Blur and Magic Eden to compete on fees, driving higher trading volumes and liquidity. This matters for traders and liquidity-focused protocols where low friction and low cost are paramount.
04
Optional Royalty Models (Cons)
Erodes Creator Trust & Sustainability: Leads to ~80%+ royalty non-compliance on optional platforms, undermining the economic model for long-term projects. This matters for PFP communities and gaming ecosystems reliant on continuous creator development and support.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Architectural Recommendations by Use Case
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures for NFT Marketplaces
Verdict: Mandatory for creator-centric platforms. Strengths: Guarantees sustainable creator revenue, aligns with high-value art/collectible ecosystems (e.g., Art Blocks, Yuga Labs), and builds long-term trust. Architectures like EIP-2981 with on-chain enforcement or custom marketplace smart contracts (e.g., Manifold) are the standard. Trade-offs: Can limit secondary market liquidity if traders migrate to optional-royalty venues. Requires careful integration with wallets and indexers.
Optional Royalty Models for NFT Marketplaces
Verdict: Optimal for trader-first, high-volume platforms. Strengths: Maximizes liquidity and trader appeal by minimizing transaction costs. Dominant in speculative/PFP markets and on chains like Solana where optionality is the norm (e.g., Tensor, Magic Eden). Trade-offs: Erodes creator economics; relies on off-chain honor systems or creator blocklists, which are often circumvented.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict & Decision Framework
A final assessment of mandatory versus optional NFT royalty models, framed for strategic decision-making.
Royalty-Enforcing Architectures excel at creator protection and predictable revenue by embedding fee logic directly into the smart contract or protocol layer. For example, platforms like Manifold Studio and Art Blocks use on-chain enforcement, which has historically secured millions in creator fees. This model provides strong guarantees, aligning with the ethos of projects like Chromie Squiggle where creator sustainability is paramount. However, it can face friction on marketplaces that resist such enforcement, potentially limiting secondary market liquidity.
Optional Royalty Models take a different approach by prioritizing market freedom and liquidity, leaving fee payment to the discretion of the marketplace or trader. This strategy, adopted by market leaders like Blur and OpenSea (with its Operator Filter now sunset), results in a trade-off: significantly higher trading volumes and Total Value Locked (TVL) in DeFi-NFT ecosystems, but at the cost of drastically reduced effective royalty rates—often below 0.6% on optional platforms versus the historical 5-10% standard.
The key trade-off: If your priority is guaranteed creator economics and long-term project sustainability, choose a royalty-enforcing architecture like those built on Ethereum with ERC-2981 or specific L2s. If you prioritize maximum liquidity, trader adoption, and integration with high-volume marketplaces and DeFi protocols, choose an optional model, acknowledging the need for alternative monetization strategies. The decision ultimately hinges on whether you value enforceable principle or pragmatic market reach.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall