Royalty enforcement failed because it relied on centralized marketplaces to self-police. Platforms like Blur and OpenSea compete on liquidity, creating a prisoner's dilemma where the first to bypass royalties gains volume. This is a principal-agent problem: marketplaces are not the principals.
nft-market-cycles-art-utility-and-culture
Blog
The Future of Royalties is a Smart Contract Problem, Not a Marketplace One
Marketplace-led royalty enforcement has failed. This analysis argues that sustainable creator economics require programmable settlement logic embedded directly in the NFT's transfer function, making royalties a non-negotiable protocol-level feature.
introduction
THE MARKET FAILURE
Introduction: The Royalty Compliance Lie
Marketplace-led royalty enforcement is a failed social contract, ceding control to platforms that prioritize volume over creator economics.
The core issue is architectural. Royalties are a smart contract-level obligation, not a feature for secondary platforms to optionally implement. The current standard (ERC-721) delegates payment logic to the transfer function caller, creating a systemic vulnerability.
The solution is protocol-native. New token standards like ERC-721C and EIP-6968 move royalty logic into the token contract itself, enabling on-chain enforceable transfers. This shifts the burden from trust in marketplaces to verifiable code.
Evidence: After OpenSea's optional royalty tool failed, creator earnings on major collections plummeted by over 60%. Protocols like Manifold that implement ERC-721C now see 99.9% royalty compliance across all marketplaces, proving the technical fix works.
key-insights
THE FUTURE OF ROYALTIES
Executive Summary: The Protocol-First Thesis
Royalty enforcement has failed because it was outsourced to centralized marketplaces. The solution is to embed it at the protocol layer, making it a property of the asset itself.
01
The Problem: Marketplace Fragmentation
Royalty enforcement relies on the goodwill of individual platforms like OpenSea and Blur, creating a race to the bottom. This has led to ~80%+ of secondary NFT trades bypassing creator fees on major chains.
- Market Failure: Zero-fee marketplaces gain volume by externalizing costs to creators.
- Inconsistent Policy: Each platform implements its own, often optional, enforcement.
- Broken Social Contract: Collectors are pitted against creators they aim to support.
80%+
Fee Bypass
0
Protocol Guarantee
02
The Solution: On-Chain Enforcement
Royalties must be a transfer-level constraint, not a platform feature. This requires modifying the core NFT standard (e.g., ERC-721C, ERC-2981) or using transfer hooks to intercept sales.
- Asset-Centric: The fee logic travels with the token, independent of the marketplace.
- Universal Compliance: Works across all DEXs, aggregators, and private sales.
- Creator Sovereignty: Fees are non-optional, set and updated by the creator's contract.
100%
Coverage
Layer 1
Enforcement
03
The Trade-Off: Composability vs. Control
Hard-coded royalties can conflict with DeFi composability. Protocols like SudanSwap or lending vaults require permissionless transfers. The technical challenge is designing granular, context-aware rules.
- Selective Enforcement: Allow fee-free transfers for approved smart contracts (e.g., collateral liquidations).
- Programmable Logic: Use EIP-7495 style 'transfer authorities' to define valid fee-free pathways.
- Economic Security: The system must resist gaming while not breaking core DeFi primitives.
~500ms
Logic Overhead
Context-Aware
Rule Engine
04
The Precedent: ERC-20 Tax Tokens
The blueprint exists. ERC-20 tokens with transfer fees (e.g., some meme coins) have enforced fees at the protocol level for years. The innovation is applying this model to the more complex ERC-721/1155 ecosystem with its existing infrastructure.
- Proven Mechanism: Fee-on-transfer is a solved technical problem.
- Integration Hurdle: Requires wallet, indexer, and marketplace support to display fees correctly.
- Network Effect: Widespread adoption needs a coalition of major collections to shift the standard.
ERC-20
Blueprint
L2 Ready
Scalable
05
The Architect: Who Builds It?
This is not a feature for a single app. It requires standard bodies (Ethereum Magicians), core dev teams, and major NFT projects (e.g., Yuga Labs, Art Blocks) to collaborate. The winner will be the protocol, not the marketplace.
- Standardization First: A new ERC must achieve critical mass to be viable.
- Incentive Alignment: Projects with $1B+ in collective volume must champion the change.
- Infrastructure Rollout: Requires updates across the entire stack, from RPC nodes to market APIs.
$1B+
Volume Required
Multi-Year
Timeline
06
The Outcome: Re-Aligned Incentives
Protocol-level royalties restore the original economic model of digital ownership. This creates sustainable funding for creators and increases the long-term value of the underlying IP, benefiting the entire ecosystem.
- Sustainable Creation: Predictable revenue enables professional creative work.
- Increased Asset Value: Properly funded projects maintain and enhance their collections.
- Marketplace Innovation: Platforms compete on UX and discovery, not on stripping creator value.
10x+
Creator ROI
Aligned
Ecosystem
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Core Argument: Settlement Logic is Sovereign
Royalty enforcement must migrate from marketplace policy to the settlement layer of the smart contract itself.
Royalties are a settlement problem. Marketplaces like Blur and OpenSea are policy enforcers, not settlement engines. Their fee logic is a suggestion that competing frontends ignore. The only immutable enforcement happens when an asset's transfer function executes.
Sovereign logic resides in the token. Protocols like Manifold's Royalty Registry or EIP-2981 attempt to standardize on-chain lookups. This moves the royalty rulebook into the contract state, making it legible to any settlement system, from Uniswap to a direct wallet transfer.
Settlement abstraction enables compliance. Intent-based systems like UniswapX and Across Protocol separate user intent from execution. A sovereign royalty contract defines fees as a precondition for settlement, which any solver's transaction bundle must satisfy to be valid.
Evidence: After OpenSea optionalized fees, creator earnings on major collections fell over 50%. Collections with hard-coded royalty logic in transfer functions, like CryptoPunks, maintained 100% enforcement regardless of marketplace.
market-context
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Market Context: The Race to the Bottom
Marketplace competition has structurally eliminated creator royalties by making them an optional, negotiable cost.
Royalties are a protocol-level failure. On-chain creator fees are an application-level feature, making them trivial for marketplaces like Blur and OpenSea to circumvent to compete on price.
The solution is a smart contract problem. Enforceable royalties require on-chain logic that executes before asset transfer, not post-trade marketplace policies. Standards like ERC-721C and ERC-2981 provide the hooks but lack universal enforcement.
Evidence: After Blur's optional royalties, creator fee collection on major collections dropped over 90%. This proves that marketplace-led solutions are non-solutions in a competitive landscape.
ROYALTY ENFORCEMENT ARCHITECTURES
The Enforcement Spectrum: From Suggestion to Guarantee
Comparing on-chain mechanisms for creator royalty enforcement, moving from voluntary compliance to cryptoeconomic guarantees.
| Enforcement Mechanism | Marketplace-Optional (ERC-2981) | Transfer-Hook Enforcement (ERC-721C) | Settlement-Layer Enforcement (ERC-7579) |
|---|---|---|---|
Core Enforcement Layer | Marketplace UI/Logic | NFT Transfer Function | Settlement Protocol (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) |
Royalty Bypass Possible? | |||
Requires Marketplace Integration | |||
Protocol-Level Slashing | |||
Gas Cost Impact on Transfer | None | +40k-100k gas | None (off-chain) |
Adoption Complexity for Creators | Low (set in metadata) | Medium (deploy custom contract) | High (integrate with solver network) |
Example Implementations | OpenSea, Blur (optional) | Limit Break, Manifold | UniswapX, Across, Anoma |
Guarantee Strength | Suggestion | On-Chain Contract | Cryptoeconomic |
deep-dive
THE PROTOCOL LAYER
Deep Dive: Architecting Sovereign Royalties
Royalty enforcement must migrate from centralized marketplaces to programmable, on-chain primitives.
Royalties are a smart contract problem. Marketplace-level enforcement is a brittle, centralized patch. The correct architectural layer for enforcement is the asset's own contract logic, which executes independently of any trading venue.
Sovereign enforcement requires new primitives. Standards like ERC-2981 define a royalty info interface, but enforcement requires programmable settlement logic. This is the domain of ERC-721C (creator-controlled fees) or custom hooks in account abstraction wallets.
The model shifts from permission to verification. Instead of asking marketplaces for permission, creator contracts verify payment post-trade. This aligns with intent-based settlement systems like UniswapX or CowSwap, where a solver must satisfy the royalty condition to settle.
Evidence: On Manifold's Royalty Registry, over 1.5 million NFTs have registered enforceable fee schedules, creating an on-chain source of truth that any protocol can permissionlessly query and respect.
protocol-spotlight
THE FUTURE OF ROYALTIES
Protocol Spotlight: Builders on the Frontier
Marketplace fee wars have proven royalties are a protocol-level design flaw. The next wave solves it with on-chain enforcement.
01
Manifold: The Creator-Centric Primitive
Shifts the royalty contract from the NFT to a dedicated, upgradeable registry. This makes fees enforceable at the smart contract layer, independent of marketplace compliance.
- Creator-Owned Registry: Over 1M+ contracts deployed, giving creators sovereign control.
- On-Chain Enforcement: Royalties are a transfer logic problem, solved via
setTokenRoyaltyhooks. - Marketplace Agnostic: Works with any platform that integrates the standard, from OpenSea to Blur.
1M+
Contracts
100%
On-Chain
02
ERC-721C: The Programmable Royalty Standard
A radical proposal: let creators define their own royalty logic and enforcement mechanisms directly in the token contract.
- Flexible Enforcement: Supports allowlists, blocklists, and custom rules (e.g., royalty-free for certain pools).
- Creator-Defined Logic: Moves beyond static percentages to dynamic, context-aware fees.
- Protocol-Level Solution: Makes bypassing royalties a consensus failure, not a policy choice.
Dynamic
Logic
ERC-721C
Standard
03
The Problem: Royalties as a Policy
Treating royalties as a marketplace feature created a race to the bottom. Platforms like Blur and OpenSea waived fees to capture volume, destroying a core economic promise for creators.
- Economic Misalignment: Marketplaces optimize for their own fees, not creator revenue.
- Centralized Point of Failure: Reliance on a few corporate entities for enforcement.
- Result: >90% drop in effective royalty collection on major collections post-2022.
>90%
Drop
Policy
Failure
04
The Solution: Royalties as Transfer Logic
The only sustainable model is enforcing fees at the token transfer level, making evasion impossible without breaking the chain.
- First-Principles Design: Royalties are a condition of ownership transfer, like a tax.
- Removes Marketplace Leverage: No single entity can decide to bypass the rule.
- Enables New Models: Paves the way for on-chain royalty auctions and dynamic fee markets.
Unbreakable
Enforcement
Layer 1
Solution
counter-argument
THE EXECUTION LAYER
Counter-Argument: The Liquidity & Complexity Trade-off
Enforcing royalties on-chain fragments liquidity and creates a worse user experience than the problem it solves.
On-chain enforcement fragments liquidity. A marketplace that enforces royalties cannot access the liquidity of platforms like Blur or OpenSea that do not, creating a worse price for sellers. This is a direct liquidity tax imposed on creators' own communities.
The user experience is broken. A wallet pop-up for a royalty payment is a transaction failure for users expecting a simple NFT swap. This complexity kills adoption and pushes volume to simpler, royalty-agnostic venues.
Smart contracts are the execution layer. The marketplace is just a front-end. The royalty logic must be in the token's immutable contract, using standards like EIP-2981 or EIP-5218, to be universally enforceable without permission.
Evidence: Look at ERC-20s. No one debates Uniswap's right to execute trades; the token contract defines transfer rules. NFT contracts that lack this enforcement, like many Bored Apes, have ceded control to the market.
takeaways
ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Takeaways: A Blueprint for Builders
Royalty enforcement must be pushed from the application layer (marketplaces) to the protocol layer (smart contracts).
01
The Problem: Marketplace Fragmentation
Royalty enforcement is outsourced to dozens of marketplaces with misaligned incentives, leading to a race to the bottom on fees.\n- Result: Creator revenue is optional and volatile.\n- Example: Blur vs. OpenSea wars demonstrated this flaw.
0-100%
Fee Variability
>50
Marketplaces
02
The Solution: On-Chain Enforcement
Embed royalty logic directly into the NFT's transfer mechanism using standards like ERC-2981 or custom transfer hooks (ERC-721C).\n- Mechanism: Fees are a mandatory tax on every secondary sale, settled atomically.\n- Analogy: It's the difference between a voluntary tip jar and a built-in sales tax.
100%
Enforcement Rate
Gas+
Cost
03
The Trade-off: Liquidity vs. Sovereignty
Enforcing royalties can fragment liquidity, as traders migrate to venues that bypass fees. The solution is a unified settlement layer.\n- Reference: Look to Seaport 1.5 for protocol-level fee primitives.\n- Outcome: Marketplaces compete on UX, not on circumventing creator payouts.
High
Creator Sovereignty
Variable
Liquidity Impact
04
The Future: Programmable Royalties
Static fees are primitive. The endgame is dynamic, context-aware royalties powered by on-chain data.\n- Use Case: Time-decaying fees, volume-based tiers, or DAO-governed rates.\n- Infrastructure: Requires oracle integration (e.g., Chainlink) and more complex smart contract logic.
Dynamic
Fee Logic
Oracle+
Dependency
05
The Hurdle: Legacy Collections
ERC-721A and other non-upgradable standards are stranded. Solutions require wrapper contracts or social consensus, not just tech.\n- Challenge: Migrating liquidity and community sentiment.\n- Partial Fix: Marketplace blacklists create centralization and are a stopgap.
Billions
Locked Value
Social
Solution Layer
06
The Blueprint: Build Here
For new projects, the stack is clear. Start with ERC-721C (transfer hooks) or a forkable base like Manifold's royalty-enforcing contracts.\n- Priority: Royalty logic is a core smart contract feature, not a marketplace add-on.\n- Ecosystem: Integrate with Seaport for maximum compatibility without sacrificing enforcement.
Day 1
Enforcement
Max
Compatibility
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