NFT Royalties 3.0: New Models for Creator Earnings in 2025

NFTs promised creators a perpetual royalty on every resale. In practice, the story has been more complex. Early on, many marketplaces honored creator fees, but by 2022 a “race to the bottom” made royalties optional on major platforms. Creators fought back with technical and legal innovations. Today in 2025 we see “Royalties 3.0” – a mix of on-chain standards, registries, dynamic splits and even DAO-based schemes to reward artists and writers. In this article we trace the evolution of NFT royalties (2021–2025), highlight platforms with creator-friendly models (Zora, Manifold, Sound.xyz, Deca, etc.), examine the legal/regulatory landscape, and survey new royalty models (programmable tiers, split payments, creator DAOs) shaping the modern Web3 creator economy.

The Evolution of NFT Royalties (2021–2025)

• 2021 (Enforced Royalties Era): During the NFT boom, marketplaces like OpenSea, Foundation, SuperRare and Rarible honored creator royalties by default. Many artists relied on secondary sales for income. The technical tool behind this was EIP-2981 (the NFT Royalty Standard), which lets any NFT contract signal a royalty percentage and recipient address. In theory a marketplace could call royaltyInfo(tokenId, salePrice) on an NFT contract and automatically split out, say, 5–10% for the creator. This “on-chain promise” seemed revolutionary. In reality, EIP-2981 was only a convention: it had no enforcement mechanism in the ERC-721 spec. As one guide explains, “The NFT contract can have a sign that says, ‘Please pay the artist 5%.’ However, it has no power to force the buyer or seller to actually make that payment. The enforcement of royalties is entirely up to the marketplace”. In practice, 2021 marketplaces largely chose to pay these creator fees, treating them as a standard part of the ecosystem.

• 2022 (Optional Royalties and “Race to the Bottom”): As NFT trading volumes cooled in late 2021, competition intensified. New marketplaces offered optional royalties or zero fees to attract traders. Blur (launched early 2022) famously rolled out a model where collectors were incentivized to opt out of paying creator royalties, arguing that true ownership should allow any sale terms. Similarly, SudoSwap and X2Y2 adopted zero-fee models. This shift “was the easiest fee to cut – the artist’s royalty”. Trading quickly migrated to these platforms, forcing veterans like OpenSea to retrofit optional-fee features to stay competitive. The result was a sharp drop in royalty revenue for creators. In effect, royalties moved from a “must-pay” to a “wish-to-pay” model across much of the market by 2023.

• 2022–2023 (Workarounds and Allow-Lists): In response, some projects built anti-circumvention measures. A few NFT contracts included code that restricted transfers only to royalty-respecting marketplaces (an “allowlist”). Others explored “royalty enforcement” smart contracts that would block unauthorized sales. For example, several wrapper protocols emerged to force royalty splits, or to require a special token transfer that encodes payment. These hacks were controversial (anti-decentralization, since they rely on centralized lists), but they underlined creators’ struggle to get paid off-platform. Meanwhile, new standards were proposed. In late 2022 an “NFT Ricardian contract” EIP was drafted to let creators embed a legally-binding license URI in their token metadata, so that owning the NFT would imply an agreement to pay royalties. These ideas are still evolving, but they highlight the tension: NFT code can signal royalty intent, but true enforcement may need explicit licensing agreements (legal or on-chain).

• 2024–2025 (Programmability & Community Models): Today we’re seeing creative answers. Data trackers report that over 80% of new NFT contracts deploy on-chain royalty logic in 2025, often combined with registry overrides for older collections. Many projects now offer tiered or dynamic royalties, where the fee can change over time or on certain conditions. For example, an NFT collection might pay 5% on the first resale, then drop to 3% thereafter. Split royalties are also common: agreements that automatically divide proceeds among co-creators or collaborators (e.g. 80/10/10 splits). Community-owned “creator DAOs” have emerged, where fans co-invest and govern a creator’s treasury – even deciding on royalty rules. In short, royalties have become programmable: they can be encoded in token logic, split among multiple wallets, tiered by sale count or price, or managed by DAOs to sustain a collective’s growth. (See “Programmable Royalty Models” below.).

Leading Platforms with Creator-Friendly Models

Several NFT platforms have embraced advanced royalty models and tools for artists:

• Zora (Ethereum/Optimism): Zora’s v3 protocol was built with royalties at its core. Any NFT that supports EIP-2981 (or has its royalties registered) will be paid “instantly and trustlessly on-chain” whenever it trades on Zora. In fact, Zora even integrated the Manifold Royalty Registry, so creators can set royalties for legacy contracts outside the standard flow. Zora’s design (with on-chain orders and listings) means the marketplace itself never has to hold NFTs, and it automatically routes creator fees on every sale. The results speak for themselves: in Q2 2025 Zora handled over $353 million in trading volume, funneling $27 million in rewards to content creators. Zora’s own tokenomics (50% of trading fees go to creators) and minting tools further align incentives for artists.

• Manifold (Ethereum): Manifold is known for giving creators easy-to-deploy smart contracts. Every Manifold contract has built‑in royalty support and multiple-recipient splits, so creators can automatically pay collaborators or splits every time their NFTs resell. In 2022 Manifold launched an on-chain Royalty Registry (royaltyregistry.xyz): a public contract that lets creators retroactively add or update royalties for any existing collection. This means that even if a collection was minted without EIP-2981, the owner can register a royalty override on-chain. Marketplaces that consult the registry will then honor those royalties without needing a contract upgrade. In effect, Manifold’s registry “makes it easier for marketplaces to use appropriate on-chain royalty configurations instead of a centralized model”. Many NFT marketplaces now reference this registry to decide payouts.

• Sound.xyz (Music NFTs): Sound.xyz applies NFT principles to music. Musicians mint songs or album NFTs on Sound; each secondary sale pays the artist a royalty, but Sound also ties NFTs to streaming rights. The platform recently introduced “Sound Protocol,” in which collectors can earn streaming royalties alongside NFT royalties. (For example, top NFT holders might get a cut of Spotify-style streaming income.) By bundling a streaming contract with NFT ownership, Sound creates a new revenue stream for artists. Moreover, Sound’s community features — “drops” limited-edition tracks, social token partnerships, exclusive access — encourage fan support. Over its first two years, Sound artists have collectively earned millions of dollars from sales and royalties, showing how NFTs can reboot the music royalty model. (Sound’s approach has inspired others: the concept of “listen-to-earn” and continuous fan incentives is now being adopted by adjacent platforms.)

• Deca.art (Digital Art Social Hub): Deca is an up-and-coming multi-chain art platform that blends social networking with NFT galleries. While younger than the above, Deca’s vision is notable: it aims to create “a unified home for digital art,” integrating works from different chains into one feed. Deca’s token and NFT infrastructure allow artists to set standard royalty splits on their pieces, and the platform also rewards community curation. In effect, it treats each creator like a mini-brand, giving them a fanbase and tools to earn. For example, Deca worked with generative artist Kjetil Golid on a collective NFT project; the proceeds and royalties are shared among participants. (Deca’s royalty model is straightforward – artists set a split, and the marketplace pays it – but it complements Deca’s community-driven ethos. It exemplifies the new era where artists co-create with collectors and share in the value they build.)

Other platforms merit mention. On Ethereum, Foundation and SuperRare still honor royalties via EIP-2981 and even offer custom splits. New L2/sidechain networks (like Seaport/Blur’s OP-chain, Base, etc.) are introducing similar features. Game and fashion projects (like Dapper Labs’ NFL All Day) are embedding royalties to sustain ecosystem partners. In short, many modern NFT platforms now default to creator-aligned economics, in contrast to the short-lived “no-royalty” experiment of 2022.

Global Legal and Regulatory Context

Legally, NFT royalties occupy a gray area. By default, an NFT purchase does not carry any copyright or licensing transfer (only the token itself). Likewise, there is no global law that guarantees an NFT creator a resale fee. In most jurisdictions, royalties can only be enforced by explicit agreement, not by code alone. This means if a marketplace ignores the royalty function in a contract, there is usually no on-chain penalty – it would be a breach of off-chain agreement at best.

• United States: The US does not recognize a broad “resale right” for creators (unlike some places in Europe). There are no federal laws forcing a secondary royalty payment for art sales. So US artists rely entirely on marketplace compliance or contracts. In effect, American creators must trust platforms to honor royalty settings, or pursue breach-of-contract claims after the fact. (This is hard if a sale is executed by a smart contract that the creator can’t control.)

• European Union: In Europe, a limited Artists’ Resale Right (droit de suite) exists for physical art – typically a few percent of resale – but its application to NFTs is still unclear. Under MiCA (the new Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation slated for 2025), legislators have noted NFT royalty issues but have not mandated a solution. One article notes: “The Artist Resale Right applies in the EU to the resale of a physical work, although under MiCA … resale of NFTs is still under abeyance.”. In practice, European artists hope courts or regulators will extend some protection to digital works, but as of 2025 that hasn’t crystallized.

• Off-chain and Cross-chain Gaps: A major loophole is that off-chain sales can entirely sidestep royalties. If an NFT owner transfers a token directly (outside a marketplace) or trades on a platform that doesn’t check royalties, the creator may get nothing. Similarly, if an NFT is wrapped or bridged to another chain, the new version might not carry over the royalty info. This fragmentation means much of a creator’s revenue can “leak” out of smart contracts. One analysis warns that unauthorized NFTs and cross-chain trades are “undermining the creators,” with estimated piracy losses of $1–2 billion per year.

• Proposed Legal/Tech Remedies: Many of the solutions discussed on-chain have legal analogues. For instance, embedding a legally-binding license in the NFT metadata is being explored. The “NFT Ricardian contract” proposal adds a licenseURI(tokenId) function so buyers expressly agree to pay royalties. Industry groups (like the U.S. Copyright Office) have noted that current IP law broadly covers digital art under copyright, but that courts might eventually treat NFT resale rights as enforceable if licensing terms are explicit. The consensus is that smart contracts alone can’t fix every gap – creators will benefit from using clear NFT licensing standards (e.g. Creative Commons or custom licenses) and decentralized registries. For now, many artists publish an NFT license or Contributor Covenant alongside their tokens. On the regulatory side, international bodies have simply cautioned consistency; for example, the EU is considering how to harmonize digital resale rights to “ensure revenue levels of artists,” but no law has yet been passed.

In summary, royalties on NFTs sit at the intersection of code and contract law. On-chain standards (like EIP-2981) signal intent, but enforcement depends on marketplaces, smart contracts, and eventual legal recognition of NFT licenses. Creators are advised to use all tools at their disposal: encode the royalty in the token, list only on compliant venues, and consider registering licenses or joining collective agreements for stronger standing.

Standards & Royalty Registries

The backbone of royalties is technical standards and registries that help marketplaces know how much to pay whom:

• EIP-2981 (NFT Royalty Standard): Adopted in 2020, EIP-2981 defines the royaltyInfo(tokenId, salePrice) function. Any compliant NFT contract can implement this to signal the creator address and percentage for any sale price. By 2025, the vast majority of new NFT collections include EIP-2981 logic. This provides basic cross-platform compatibility: marketplaces only need to call one function to get royalty terms. (For example, Zora and others automatically honor any EIP-2981 contract). However, recall that EIP-2981 itself does not enforce payment; it’s just a standard interface.

• Registry Overrides: Because many early NFTs didn’t use EIP-2981, workarounds arose. Manifold’s Royalty Registry (a public on-chain contract) is widely used: any collection owner can add or update their royalty for a given contract address. Marketplaces can query this registry in addition to calling royaltyInfo. In effect, it “unifies” royalty data: if an NFT contract didn’t originally store a royalty, the registry can fill that gap. Other initiatives include OpenSea’s operator filter (CORI) which, while active, allowed artists to block sales on wallets that didn’t honor royalties. Though OpenSea has since made creator fees optional, the concept introduced the idea of embedded on-chain enforcement. Similarly, Rarible and Foundation support EIP-2981 and automatically enforce it in their contracts.

• Platform-Specific Mechanics: Some venues implement their own mini-standards. For example, Zora’s V3 protocol directly pays out any declared royalty (via EIP-2981 or registry) in the same transaction. Foundation uses an ERC-2981-like override in its minting to lock in a 10% default. Sound.xyz built “Sound Protocol” that ties an NFT’s URI to streaming contracts (so part of streaming revenue flows on-chain to NFT holders). Each platform contributes to a patchwork of approaches, but all aim to preserve creator take.

• Open Standards Evolution: Seeing these patchworks, developers have proposed new token standards. One example is ERC-721C, an extension to allow upgradable or composable NFT rules (including flexible transfers and royalties). Another is the draft “Ricardian” NFT standard which embeds legal licenses (as above). If widely adopted, these could make royalty terms enforceable clauses. But as of 2025, none has gained universal adoption – EIP-2981 plus registry remains the main baseline.

Programmable & Split Royalties (Royalties 3.0)

Beyond just setting a flat fee, creators are experimenting with new royalty schemes that better fit their projects:

• Tiered/Decaying Royalties: Many collections now encode multiple stages. A common pattern is higher fee on early resales, lower fee later. For example, a project might charge 8% on the first resale, then drop to 5% thereafter. This rewards early supporters while acknowledging that over time artists want to encourage liquidity. Industry analysis notes that “tiered royalty models like 5% then 3% are becoming more common”. Some even tie the rate to time or sale price: an NFT might pay 10% if flipped within a week of mint, but 2% if held longer. These dynamic models are fully programmable via smart contract oracles.

• Multi-Way Splits: When multiple people collaborate on an NFT (artist, co-artist, producer, influencer), they can automatically share royalties. Modern contract libraries (Manifold’s contracts, OpenZeppelin’s extensions, etc.) support multiple payees. For instance, an NFT contract might specify that 60% of royalties go to the lead artist, 20% to a collaborator, and 20% to a foundation. Platforms like Zora make this easy by allowing creators to list a royalty-split when they mint. Data suggest co-creator splits are paying off: one report notes platforms where “royalty payouts exceed $1.8B” cumulatively, in part because many contracts split proceeds among teams. This also ties into influencer marketing: some projects offer small royalty shares to promoters or community members who helped drive demand.

• Creator DAOs and Guilds: In some projects, the NFT itself is owned by a small DAO of artists or fans. That collective then decides how to use the income. For example, a group of writers might create a “Writers’ Guild NFT” contract; every sale pays into a treasury that the DAO can allocate (scholarships, new projects, etc.). This turns royalties into community funding. While still niche, this model is gaining interest: one industry academy mentions “creator DAOs and community-driven funding” as an emerging royalty model.

• Secondary Utilities and Tokens: Some creators tie royalties to utility tokens. For instance, owning a certain NFT might automatically grant an ERC‑20 token which accrues value from all future NFT fees. These “content coins” reward long-term holders – seen on platforms like Zora, where creators launch a social token alongside their art. Others use fractionalization: an artist might mint a painting NFT, then sell 100 “shares” of it; each time the painting resells, all share-holders automatically get a cut of the royalty. These novel schemes are the wild frontier of royalties 3.0.

In practice, creators now pick and mix: they deploy EIP-2981, register a default royalty on the registry, and then layer on their custom rules. A launch might look like this: Mint NFT → set 10% EIP-2981 royalty split (70/15/15) to team wallets → list on Zora (guaranteeing on-chain payout) → allow collectors to resell anywhere but trust onchain hook. This gives creators multiple “rings of protection” for their income.

Summary

NFT royalties have come full circle. What began as an on-chain promise in 2021 turned into a contentious free-for-all by 2022, but by 2025 it has evolved into a rich toolkit of financial and technical innovations for creators. Most new NFT contracts do encode a royalty, and leading platforms ensure those payments reach creators. Global legal systems are slowly catching up (with debates about expanding resale rights and embedding licenses, but the creative community isn’t waiting: they’re crafting “Royalties 3.0” through smarter contracts, shared economics, and community governance.

For digital artists, designers, writers and musicians, the takeaway is hopeful: Web3’s infrastructure can finally deliver on the promise of lifelong earnings. By 2025, royalties are not just a fixed fee – they’re a flexible, programmable part of a creator’s business model. Platforms like Zora and Manifold lead the way with on-chain enforcement and registries, but we expect all NFT marketplaces will increasingly honor these modern creator-centric norms. The playing field may still be uneven, but one thing is clear: the future belongs to those who build fair, transparent royalty models that reward creators and engage communities.