Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
LABS
Comparisons

EIP-2981 Royalty Standard vs. Custom Marketplace Enforcement

A technical analysis for CTOs and protocol architects comparing the universal, interoperable EIP-2981 standard against proprietary, marketplace-specific smart contract logic for enforcing NFT creator royalties.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: The Royalty Enforcement Dilemma

A technical breakdown of the two dominant strategies for NFT creator royalties: the on-chain standard versus marketplace-level enforcement.

EIP-2981 excels at providing a universal, on-chain standard for royalty information. It's a simple, gas-efficient interface (royaltyInfo) that any marketplace can query, making it the de facto choice for broad ecosystem compatibility. For example, major platforms like OpenSea, Blur, and LooksRare support it, and it underpins over 80% of new NFT collections on Ethereum. Its strength is its elegant decentralization, placing the royalty logic directly in the smart contract.

Custom Marketplace Enforcement takes a different approach by making royalty payment a core policy of the marketplace itself, not the token. This results in a trade-off: it allows for powerful, nuanced rules (like time-decaying fees or whitelists) and near-100% enforcement within that walled garden, as seen with platforms like Magic Eden on Solana. However, this control is lost the moment an NFT is traded on a non-compliant marketplace or via a peer-to-peer transfer.

The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing reach and future-proofing across a fragmented multi-chain ecosystem, the EIP-2981 standard is the foundational layer. If you prioritize absolute, immediate enforcement and complex rule-sets within a specific, controlled environment, a Custom Marketplace policy is more effective. Most sophisticated projects now use a hybrid model: EIP-2981 as the baseline, augmented by custom logic for their primary launch partner.

tldr-summary
EIP-2981 vs. Custom Enforcement

TL;DR: Core Differentiators

Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for NFT royalty strategies.

01

EIP-2981: Standardized Interoperability

Universal marketplace support: A single on-chain function (royaltyInfo) that compliant platforms like OpenSea, Blur, and LooksRare automatically respect. This reduces integration overhead and ensures creator fees are paid across a fragmented ecosystem. This matters for collections launching on multiple marketplaces.

80%+
Major Market Share
02

EIP-2981: Predictable Gas & Simplicity

Low-cost, on-chain logic: The royalty calculation is a simple view function, adding minimal gas overhead to transfers. No complex off-chain services or custom contracts are required for basic enforcement. This matters for projects prioritizing lean contract deployment and predictable minting costs.

< 5k
Gas Overhead
03

Custom Enforcement: Absolute Control

Protocol-level enforcement: Techniques like transfer hooks (e.g., Seaport's _update), blocklist functions, or custom sale logic (used by Art Blocks) can mandate royalties on any sale, including OTC and private sales. This matters for high-value PFP or generative art projects where royalty bypass is a critical revenue threat.

~100%
On-Chain Coverage
04

Custom Enforcement: Flexible Fee Models

Dynamic and complex logic: Enables tiered royalties, time-based decays, or revenue splits that EIP-2981's static receiver and amount cannot support. Used by platforms like Manifold for advanced creator tools. This matters for DAO-governed collections or projects with sophisticated treasury management needs.

N/A
Unlimited Logic
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON

Feature Comparison: EIP-2981 vs. Custom Enforcement

Direct comparison of on-chain royalty enforcement mechanisms for NFT marketplaces.

MetricEIP-2981 StandardCustom Marketplace Enforcement

Enforcement Layer

Smart Contract (On-Chain)

Marketplace Policy (Off-Chain)

Royalty Payment Guarantee

Protocol-Level Integration

Marketplace Adoption

OpenSea, LooksRare

Blur, X2Y2

Creator Setup Complexity

Low (Single Interface)

High (Per-Marketplace)

Royalty Flexibility

Fixed %

Configurable (%, Fixed Fee, Dynamic)

Gas Cost Impact

< 5% increase

0% (Off-Chain)

pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURE DECISION

EIP-2981 Royalty Standard vs. Custom Marketplace Enforcement

Choosing a royalty enforcement strategy is a foundational protocol decision. This comparison breaks down the core trade-offs between the on-chain standard and custom, marketplace-level logic.

01

EIP-2981: Standardized Interoperability

Universal Support: A single, on-chain function (royaltyInfo) that any compliant marketplace (OpenSea, Blur, LooksRare) can query. This creates a predictable, chain-level royalty layer.

This matters for creators launching collections across multiple platforms, as it ensures a single source of truth for royalty parameters without per-platform configuration.

02

EIP-2981: On-Chain Immutability & Transparency

Immutable Rules: Royalty parameters (recipient, fee basis points) are embedded in the NFT contract's code or metadata, visible to all. This prevents post-hoc manipulation by marketplaces.

This matters for high-value art and generative projects where creator trust and provenance are paramount. The terms are enforced by the protocol, not platform policy.

03

Custom Enforcement: Granular Control & Flexibility

Platform-Specific Logic: Marketplaces like Sudoswap or Blur implement their own fee tables, allowlists, and trading rules. This enables features like optional royalties, fee tiers, and dynamic adjustments based on volume.

This matters for marketplaces optimizing for trader experience and liquidity, allowing them to adapt policies competitively without being bound by a contract standard.

04

Custom Enforcement: Bypass Resistance & Fee Optimization

Direct Contract Integration: Advanced systems can use transfer hooks, operator allowlists, or custom sale logic to block trades on non-compliant platforms or enforce fees at the settlement layer.

This matters for protocols like Manifold or Art Blocks Curated that require strong, non-optional royalties, or for marketplaces seeking to minimize fees to attract high-frequency traders.

pros-cons-b
EIP-2981 vs. Custom Enforcement

Custom Marketplace Enforcement: Pros and Cons

A technical breakdown of the two primary strategies for NFT royalty enforcement, highlighting key architectural trade-offs for protocol designers.

01

EIP-2981: Standardized Interoperability

Universal Integration: A single royaltyInfo function call enables seamless support across all compliant marketplaces like OpenSea, Blur, and LooksRare. This reduces integration friction for creators and ensures consistent royalty logic. This matters for protocols launching broad NFT collections that need to be tradable everywhere without custom contracts per marketplace.

02

EIP-2981: Creator Simplicity

Low Overhead for Artists: Creators can deploy standard ERC-721/1155 contracts (e.g., using OpenZeppelin) with minimal modification, focusing on art and community rather than complex enforcement logic. This matters for independent artists and brands without dedicated smart contract engineering teams, lowering the barrier to entry.

03

EIP-2981: Critical Weakness

Voluntary Compliance: The standard is a suggestion, not an enforcement mechanism. Major marketplaces like Blur and Sudoswap have disabled fee forwarding, leading to ~$100M+ in lost royalties annually. This matters for high-value collections and DAOs where secondary sales revenue is a core part of the economic model.

04

Custom Enforcement: Guaranteed Fees

Contract-Level Enforcement: Techniques like transfer hooks (ERC-721Psi), owner-only listing, or blocking non-compliant exchanges (e.g., Manifold's Royalty Registry) make royalties non-optional. This matters for enterprise NFT projects and gaming assets where predictable, on-chain revenue is non-negotiable.

05

Custom Enforcement: Protocol Control

Flexible Business Logic: Enables sophisticated rules like dynamic fees, revenue splits to multiple parties, or staking requirements for fee discounts. Projects like Art Blocks and Bored Ape Yacht Club use custom logic for granular control. This matters for complex DAO treasuries and multi-party creator economies.

06

Custom Enforcement: Integration Cost

Marketplace Fragmentation: Requires bespoke allowlisting or integration with each exchange, increasing development and maintenance overhead. Can limit initial liquidity by excluding non-compliant platforms. This matters for startups with constrained engineering resources who need maximum launch liquidity across all venues.

CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

Decision Framework: When to Choose Which

EIP-2981 for Protocol Architects

Verdict: The default choice for composability and ecosystem alignment. Strengths: EIP-2981 is an on-chain, permissionless standard that integrates seamlessly with major marketplaces like OpenSea, Blur, and LooksRare. It ensures royalties are paid automatically on any compliant platform, reducing integration friction. It's ideal for protocols building for the long-term Ethereum ecosystem, prioritizing standardization over immediate, absolute enforcement. Weaknesses: Relies on marketplace goodwill for enforcement; non-compliant marketplaces can bypass it.

Custom Enforcement for Protocol Architects

Verdict: Necessary for high-value collections requiring absolute control. Strengths: Custom solutions, like transfer hooks or blocklists, provide direct, on-chain enforcement independent of marketplace cooperation. This is critical for blue-chip projects (e.g., Bored Ape Yacht Club) or gaming assets where revenue is non-negotiable. It uses mechanisms like onERC721Received to validate payments. Weaknesses: Increases contract complexity, gas costs, and can fragment liquidity by blocking non-compliant venues.

verdict
THE ANALYSIS

Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation

A strategic breakdown for CTOs choosing between protocol-level royalties and bespoke marketplace enforcement.

EIP-2981 excels at providing broad, permissionless compatibility across the NFT ecosystem. As a standardized interface, it allows creators to embed royalty logic directly into the smart contract, enabling automatic payouts on any compliant marketplace like OpenSea, Blur, or LooksRare. Its adoption is significant, with over 1.2 million NFT collections (including major projects like Bored Ape Yacht Club) implementing the standard, creating a powerful network effect for creator revenue. Its primary strength is reducing friction and ensuring a baseline of creator compensation without requiring platform-specific integrations.

Custom Marketplace Enforcement takes a different approach by centralizing control within the platform's own logic. This strategy allows for more sophisticated and aggressive enforcement mechanisms, such as token blacklisting, trading fee penalties, or curated allowlists. Platforms like Magic Eden on Solana have successfully used this model to maintain near-100% royalty compliance within their walled garden. The trade-off is ecosystem fragmentation; NFTs traded on non-enforcing marketplaces bypass these rules entirely, and the approach requires significant ongoing operational overhead to maintain blocklists and policy.

The key trade-off is between universal reach and enforceable control. EIP-2981 offers a decentralized, low-friction standard with wide adoption but relies on marketplace goodwill for enforcement. Custom enforcement provides ironclad guarantees within a specific platform but sacrifices interoperability. Consider EIP-2981 if your priority is ecosystem-wide compatibility, you are launching a new collection seeking maximum distribution, or you need a simple, gas-efficient solution. Choose Custom Marketplace Enforcement if your primary venue is a single, high-volume platform you control, your business model demands guaranteed royalty capture above all else, and you can accept the trade-off of limiting secondary market liquidity.

ENQUIRY

Get In Touch
today.

Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.

NDA Protected
24h Response
Directly to Engineering Team
10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall
NDA Protected Directly to Engineering Team