Smart contracts are not judges. They execute logic, not equity. A contract can split revenue 50/50, but it cannot adjudicate the subjective value of each contributor's work. This is the fundamental mismatch between code and fairness.
legal-tech-smart-contracts-and-the-law
Blog
Why Smart Contracts Can't Handle 'Fair' Royalty Distribution
Smart contracts automate payments but cannot adjudicate fairness. This analysis dissects the inherent limitations of code in managing the subjective, dynamic, and disputed realities of creative collaboration, arguing for hybrid on/off-chain systems.
introduction
THE CORE FLAW
Introduction: The False Promise of Automated Fairness
Smart contracts are deterministic, but 'fairness' is a subjective, off-chain concept they cannot encode.
The 'oracle problem' is unsolved for value. Protocols like Chainlink provide data, but no oracle quantifies creative input or effort. Projects like Euler or Aave automate financial logic, but they avoid subjective distribution entirely.
Automation creates rigid, exploitable systems. A fixed on-chain formula is a target for gaming. Contributors optimize for the metric, not the project's health, a flaw evident in early DeFi yield farming and DAO contributor reward schemes.
Evidence: Look at failed DAO experiments. The MolochDAO 'ragequit' mechanism was a crude, binary fairness override because the core distribution logic was insufficient. True fairness requires off-chain social consensus.
thesis-statement
THE ON-CHAIN LIMIT
The Core Argument: Code Cannot Compute 'Fair'
Smart contracts are deterministic state machines, making them fundamentally incapable of adjudicating subjective concepts like 'fairness' in complex revenue splits.
Smart contracts are deterministic. They execute predefined logic based on on-chain data, which excludes the off-chain context and subjective intent required to define fairness. A contract cannot interpret a handshake deal or a community's unwritten social contract.
Fairness is a social construct. It requires human judgment on variables like contribution quality, effort, and future potential—data that never exists on-chain. Protocols like UMA's optimistic oracle attempt to bridge this gap but introduce latency and trust assumptions.
Royalty disputes prove the point. The Ethereum Name Service (ENS) and Uniswap governance battles show that even with on-chain voting, 'fair' distribution requires off-chain discourse and subjective interpretation of contribution metrics that code cannot compute.
key-trends
WHY SMART CONTRACTS FAIL AT FAIRNESS
The Three Fatal Flaws of On-Chain Royalty Logic
On-chain royalty logic is fundamentally broken, creating a multi-billion dollar trust hole between creators and platforms.
01
The Static Contract Fallacy
Smart contracts are immutable, but business logic isn't. A fixed 5% royalty can't adapt to market shifts, new revenue streams, or multi-platform distribution.
- Key Flaw: Code ossifies while creator agreements evolve.
- Result: Multi-million dollar disputes over off-chain terms that the on-chain contract is blind to.
0%
Adaptability
100%
Rigid Logic
02
The Oracle Problem (Again)
To be 'fair', a contract needs real-world data: platform fees, fiat conversions, secondary market sales. This reintroduces the very oracle trust problem DeFi tries to solve.
- Key Flaw: Requires trusted oracles for off-chain revenue attestation.
- Result: Centralized data feeds become the single point of failure for 'decentralized' payouts.
1
Trusted Feed
$10B+
Oracle TVL Risk
03
The Granularity Trap
On-chain microtransactions for streaming or usage-based royalties are economically impossible. Ethereum gas fees would consume >100% of the payment for a $0.01 stream.
- Key Flaw: Blockchain scalability limits enforce batch payments, destroying real-time fairness.
- Result: Creators get lump-sum approximations, not accurate, per-action compensation.
$50+
Avg. Tx Cost
$0.01
Avg. Royalty
ROYALTY ENFORCEMENT
On-Chain vs. Off-Chain: A Governance Spectrum
Comparison of mechanisms for distributing creator royalties, highlighting the technical and economic trade-offs.
| Governance Feature | Pure On-Chain Enforcement (e.g., EIP-2981) | Hybrid Enforcement (e.g., Blur, OpenSea) | Fully Off-Chain / Social (e.g., Manifold Royalty Registry) |
|---|---|---|---|
Enforcement Mechanism | Code in NFT smart contract | Marketplace policy + optional on-chain hooks | Registry + social consensus / legal |
Royalty Guarantee | |||
Gas Cost for Royalty Logic | ~20k-50k gas per tx | ~5k-15k gas (for hook) | 0 gas (off-chain) |
Upgradeability Post-Mint | |||
Resistant to Marketplace Bypass | |||
Requires Centralized Trust | |||
Example Implementation | ERC-721 with | Operator Filter Registry | Royalty Engine + on-chain registry |
deep-dive
THE STATE PROBLEM
The Royalty Enforcement Paradox
Smart contracts are fundamentally incapable of enforcing creator royalties on secondary NFT sales due to their deterministic nature and the composability of the ecosystem.
Smart contracts are state machines. They execute predefined logic on immutable, on-chain data. A contract cannot read or react to off-chain agreements, like a marketplace's terms of service, making it impossible to programmatically enforce a royalty fee that a buyer can simply bypass.
Composability creates loopholes. Protocols like Blur and Sudoswap built order books that bypassed the royalty-enforcing transferFrom hook in standards like ERC-721. This exposed the standard's weakness: it governs only direct transfers, not the financial logic wrapped around them.
The enforcement arms race is futile. Projects like Manifold deployed custom contracts with stricter hooks, but marketplaces responded by routing trades through aggregators or private pools. This cat-and-mouse game proves that on-chain logic cannot govern off-chain intent.
Evidence: After Blur's dominant market share forced royalty-optional trading, the average royalty payout for major collections like Bored Ape Yacht Club dropped from a consistent 2.5% to less than 0.6% on secondary sales, demonstrating the failure of contract-level enforcement.
case-study
WHY SMART CONTRACTS CAN'T HANDLE 'FAIR' ROYALTY DISTRIBUTION
Case Studies in Contractual Rigidity
Smart contracts enforce deterministic rules, but fairness is a subjective, multi-party coordination problem they are structurally unequipped to solve.
01
The Royalty Enforcement War (2022-2023)
Marketplaces like Blur and OpenSea bypassed on-chain royalty enforcement to capture market share, proving that code cannot force a fee if the market consensus rejects it. The result was a ~50% drop in creator royalties on major collections as optional tipping became the norm.
- Problem: Code-as-law fails when economic incentives for bypassing it are greater than compliance.
- Solution: Market-led standards (EIP-2981) and social consensus, not just smart contract logic.
~50%
Royalty Drop
EIP-2981
Proposed Standard
02
The Splits Contract Bottleneck
Platforms like Manifold and 0xSplits use immutable splitter contracts to automate payments. However, any change to the recipient list or percentages requires a new contract deployment and asset migration, creating friction and fragmentation.
- Problem: Immutability prevents graceful evolution of business relationships.
- Solution: Proxy patterns or modular upgradeability, which introduce their own centralization and security trade-offs.
1+ Week
Update Latency
High Gas
Migration Cost
03
The Oracle Problem of Real-World Revenue
Distributing royalties from off-chain revenue (merch, licensing) is impossible without a trusted oracle. This creates a centralized bottleneck and auditability gap, defeating the purpose of a decentralized payout system.
- Problem: Smart contracts are siloed from real-world financial events.
- Solution: Hybrid systems with legal wrappers (like Llama) or tokenized revenue streams, reintroducing trust.
100% Trust
Oracle Required
Off-Chain
Data Source
04
The Granularity vs. Gas Trade-Off
A "fair" micro-royalty for a 10,000-piece generative art project could require distributing pennies to hundreds of contributors per sale. On-chain execution would cost more in gas than the royalty itself, making it economically non-viable.
- Problem: Blockchain's settlement layer is too expensive for granular microtransactions.
- Solution: Layer 2 batch processing or off-chain attestation with periodic settlement, adding complexity.
>100%
Gas Overhead
L2 / Off-Chain
Required Scale
05
Immutable Code vs. Mutable Law
A copyright dispute or court order requiring a royalty change cannot be executed by an immutable contract. The legal system operates on a different, overriding layer, creating a fundamental jurisdiction clash.
- Problem: Code is not superior to sovereign law in practice.
- Solution: Admin keys or upgradeable proxies, which centralize control and create a single point of failure.
Irreconcilable
Conflict
Admin Key Risk
Common 'Fix'
06
The Composability Fragmentation Trap
Even if a perfect royalty contract exists, it must be integrated by every marketplace, wallet, and aggregator (e.g., Uniswap, Blur, OpenSea). Lack of universal adoption fragments liquidity and enforcement, reducing effective coverage.
- Problem: No single contract can dictate ecosystem-wide behavior.
- Solution: Network effects and protocol-level integration, which are slow and politically charged.
Multi-Platform
Integration Needed
Fragmented
Coverage
counter-argument
THE EXTERNAL DATA PROBLEM
Steelman: The Oracles & DAO Governance Counter
Smart contracts are deterministic state machines that cannot natively access or adjudicate the off-chain, subjective data required for fair royalty splits.
Smart contracts are isolated. They execute logic based on on-chain data, but 'fairness' is a subjective judgment requiring off-chain context like contribution metrics, IP ownership proofs, or market performance data. This creates an oracle dependency problem.
Oracles introduce centralization. Relying on Chainlink or Pyth for subjective data transfers trust from code to a data provider's curation. The oracle's data feed becomes the single point of failure and manipulation for the entire royalty system.
DAO governance is inefficient. Delegating fairness decisions to a Snapshot-based DAO replaces code with politics, creating slow, gas-intensive governance overhead for every micro-payment dispute. This is the MolochDAO coordination failure pattern.
Evidence: The Ethereum Name Service (ENS) treasury distribution, while successful, required months of off-chain community debate and a complex, multi-sig driven process—a model impossible to automate for real-time, granular royalty payments.
takeaways
THE ROYALTY BREAKDOWN
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Smart contracts are deterministic and transparent, but fundamentally lack the context to enforce fair, subjective, and off-chain creator agreements.
01
The Oracle Problem is a Deal-Breaker
A contract cannot know if a sale happened on Blur, OpenSea, or a private Discord. It only sees a token transfer. Enforcing royalties requires an oracle to attest to sale terms, introducing a trusted third party and a single point of failure.
- Trust Assumption: Relies on centralized data feeds.
- Manipulation Vector: Oracle can be gamed or censored.
- Latency Cost: Adds complexity and delays to simple transfers.
0
Native Context
1
SPOF
02
Market Fragmentation Kills Enforcement
Protocols like Blur and OpenSea implement competing royalty policies. A contract cannot force a marketplace to comply; it can only penalize users (e.g., making NFTs non-transferable), which hurts liquidity and adoption.
- Race to the Bottom: Marketplaces compete by offering lower effective fees.
- User Hostility: Punishing holders is not a sustainable solution.
- ~$2B+ Market Cap: Value of top NFT projects directly impacted by this flaw.
-100%
Enforcement
$2B+
Market Cap at Risk
03
The Solution: Intent-Based Architectures
Shift from enforcing rules on-chain to fulfilling user intents off-chain. Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate this: users declare a goal ("sell this NFT for at least X ETH, pay Y% to creator"), and solvers compete to fulfill it.
- Creator-Centric: Royalties become a pre-condition of the trade, not a post-hoc tax.
- Market Agnostic: Works across any venue or OTC deal.
- Composable: Can integrate with ERC-7579 (Minimal Modular Accounts) for smart account enforcement.
100%
Enforceable
0
Protocol Friction
04
Look to Music & Streaming, Not Code Law
Fair distribution is a business logic and legal compliance problem, not a cryptographic one. Successful models (e.g., Audius, Sound.xyz) use off-chain licensing and transparent, auditable payout dashboards powered by indexers like The Graph.
- Legal Layer: Real-world contracts provide ultimate recourse.
- Transparent Analytics: On-chain settlement with off-chain attribution.
- Scalable Model: Can handle complex splits among 10,000+ collaborators.
10,000+
Split Capacity
Legal
Recourse Layer
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