Subscription NFTs are a tax on loyalty. They force users to pay gas fees for minting and renewals, creating friction that chokes retention. This model ignores the zero-marginal-cost nature of digital goods, unlike traditional SaaS.
the-creator-economy-web2-vs-web3
Blog
Why Subscription NFTs Are a Flawed Model for Recurring Revenue
An analysis of the technical and UX friction created by using NFTs for subscriptions, arguing for a simpler model based on revocable token allowances and account abstraction.
introduction
THE FLAWED PREMISE
The Subscription NFT Mirage
Subscription NFTs fail as a recurring revenue model due to misaligned incentives and poor user experience.
The model inverts the value proposition. Users own an asset that loses utility without continuous payment, a worse deal than a simple revocable license. Projects like Manifold and Zora enable the tech, but the economics are broken.
Evidence: Look at the ERC-5006 fungible-lock standard. It separates the proof-of-access from the asset itself, a cleaner abstraction that highlights the NFT's redundancy for pure subscriptions.
key-trends
WHY SUBSCRIPTION NFTS FAIL
The Core Friction Points
Subscription NFTs attempt to graft Web2 billing logic onto Web3 primitives, creating systemic inefficiencies and poor user experiences.
01
The Liquidity Lockup Problem
Requiring users to lock up capital upfront for future services creates massive friction and opportunity cost. This is antithetical to the pay-as-you-go expectation of modern SaaS.
- Capital Inefficiency: A $100/mo service requires a $1200 NFT, tying up funds for a year.
- Poor UX: Users cannot easily pause or downgrade without complex secondary market sales.
- Protocol Overhead: Smart contracts must manage escrow and proration, adding complexity.
10-100x
Capital Required
0%
Yield on Locked Funds
02
The Secondary Market Distortion
Treating subscriptions as tradeable assets introduces volatility and arbitrage that undermines the service model. This is a fundamental mismatch of asset and utility.
- Price Speculation: Service access becomes subject to market whims, decoupling cost from value.
- Arbitrage Attacks: Users can buy discounted long-term NFTs and resell, cannibalizing protocol revenue.
- Fragmented Ownership: Splitting NFTs (via fractionalization) breaks access control logic.
50-90%
Secondary Discounts
High
Admin Overhead
03
The Composability Illusion
While NFTs are composable, subscription logic rarely is. The promised DeFi integrations (e.g., borrowing against your 'Netflix NFT') are practically non-existent due to valuation and liquidation challenges.
- Uncollateralizable: No lending protocol (Aave, Compound) accepts speculative subscription NFTs as collateral.
- Oracle Problem: Pricing a time-bound access right requires a custom oracle, not a spot price.
- Siloed Utility: The NFT's value is locked to one protocol, failing the general composability test.
~0
Major DeFi Integrations
High
Valuation Complexity
04
Protocol Revenue Instability
NFT-based models front-load all revenue, creating a dangerous cash flow illusion and misaligning long-term incentives between protocol and user.
- One-Time Sale: Revenue is recognized upfront, but service obligation lasts months/years, a liability mismatch.
- Churn Obfuscation: Failed renewals are hidden as secondary market sales, masking true user retention.
- Incentive Misalignment: Protocol's incentive is to sell NFTs, not ensure ongoing service quality.
100%
Revenue Front-Loaded
Unmeasurable
True Churn Rate
deep-dive
THE SOLUTION
The Simpler, Superior Alternative: Allowances & Abstraction
Recurring payments are a solved problem using existing, battle-tested primitives like token allowances and account abstraction.
Subscription NFTs are redundant infrastructure. The core function of a recurring payment is a pre-approved, time-based transfer of value. ERC-20 allowances on networks like Ethereum or Polygon already provide this mechanism without minting a new asset class.
Account abstraction (ERC-4337) is the superior primitive. Smart accounts enable complex transaction logic, including automated, gasless recurring payments, without burdening users with NFT management. This is the model Stripe uses for fiat.
The NFT model introduces friction and cost. Each renewal requires a new on-chain transaction to update the NFT's state, creating unnecessary gas fees and complexity compared to a simple allowance check. Protocols like Gelato Network automate allowances cheaply.
Evidence: The EIP-2612 permit() standard allows gasless token approvals, demonstrating the industry's trajectory towards signature-based abstraction, not new asset standards for utility.
RECURRING REVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE
Model Comparison: NFT vs. Allowance-Based Subscriptions
A technical breakdown of two dominant on-chain subscription models, highlighting the operational and user experience trade-offs.
| Feature / Metric | NFT-Based Model | Allowance-Based Model (ERC-20) |
|---|---|---|
Primary On-Chain Representation | Non-Fungible Token (ERC-721/1155) | Fungible Token Allowance (ERC-20 approve) |
User Action to Renew | Must mint or purchase a new NFT | None; auto-renews via allowance |
Gas Cost for Renewal (Est.) | ~$15-50 (mint/transfer) | < $1 (spend from allowance) |
Pro-Rata Billing Support | ||
Direct Revenue Attribution | Requires secondary sales royalties | Native to transfer event |
User Churn Friction | High (manual action required) | Low (passive until revocation) |
Integration Complexity | High (marketplace, metadata, wallets) | Low (standard DeFi primitive) |
State Expiry Handling | Off-chain indexer required | Native on-chain balance/allowance check |
counter-argument
THE MISALIGNMENT
Steelman: The Case For Subscription NFTs
Subscription NFTs create a structural conflict between user ownership and protocol revenue, introducing friction that superior models avoid.
Subscription NFTs fragment user identity. A user's relationship with a protocol becomes tied to a specific, non-fungible token instead of their wallet address. This breaks composability and forces protocols like Unlock Protocol to build custom tooling for a problem solved by native account abstraction.
Recurring payments are a UX tax. The model reintroduces the subscription management overhead that web3 eliminates. Users must manually renew or risk losing access, a problem that Ethereum account abstraction (ERC-4337) and gas sponsorship solve more elegantly for dApps.
The revenue model is inefficient. Protocols incur the cost and complexity of managing an on-chain subscription ledger. This creates a capital lock-up and administrative burden that a simple, off-chain Stripe-like API with on-chain verification does not.
Evidence: Major subscription-based dApps like Pianity (music) or early Mirror editions saw steep drop-offs after initial mint hype, demonstrating that speculative NFT mechanics corrupt recurring user intent.
takeaways
WHY SUBSCRIPTION NFTS ARE A FLAWED MODEL
TL;DR for Builders
Subscription NFTs promise recurring revenue but are structurally broken for most use cases. Here's why.
01
The Liquidity Death Spiral
Subscription NFTs are illiquid assets with recurring liabilities. Users can't easily exit, creating a toxic secondary market.\n- Forced HODLing traps users in bad deals, killing acquisition.\n- Secondary market prices collapse below the cost of remaining payments.\n- Creates perverse incentives for projects to churn users rather than retain them.
>80%
Discount on Secondary
0.1-1x
Annual Turnover
02
The Accounting Nightmare
ERC-721s were not designed for amortization. Revenue recognition becomes a compliance black hole.\n- Upfront revenue recognition is fraudulent but tempting.\n- Real-time liability tracking requires off-chain accounting, breaking trustlessness.\n- Auditing is impossible without centralized oracle feeds for each NFT's status.
100%
Off-Chain Logic
GAAP Violation
Accounting Risk
03
ERC-20 Streaming: The Superior Primitive
Use Sablier, Superfluid, or native token streaming. Separates the asset (NFT) from the payment stream (fungible).\n- User retains liquidity; can sell the NFT while stream continues.\n- Clean accounting: Revenue = streamed tokens, recognized in real-time.\n- Composable: Streams can be used as collateral in DeFi protocols like Aave.
ERC-20
Standard
$1B+
Streamed to Date
04
The Only Valid Use Case: Soulbound Status
Subscription NFTs work only when the token is soulbound (non-transferable) and represents pure access, not a financial instrument.\n- Examples: gated software licenses, club memberships (e.g., Bored Ape Yacht Club).\n- Requires a robust revocation/expiry mechanism (EIP-4973).\n- Eliminates secondary market distortions by design.
Soulbound
Requirement
0
Liquidity Problem
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