NFT Royalties – Fair Play or Outdated Tax?

[Chicki Akiba]

From a tech-savvy perspective, it's all about finding a balance that supports both creators and traders without stifling the market's growth. I think optional royalties could be a good compromise. Let the creator set the royalty percentage, but allow buyers and sellers to opt in or out at the time of the transaction. That way, if traders want to flip without paying extra fees, they can, but creators still have the option to earn passive income if buyers choose to support them.

Caps could work too, but I’d argue they'd need to be dynamic, potentially based on factors like how many times an NFT has changed hands or how much value it’s gained. We don’t want a rigid structure that harms the flexibility of the ecosystem.

In my personal NFT transactions, I usually factor in the royalties when deciding whether to purchase or sell. I like supporting creators, but I also understand the frustration with constantly paying royalties. This hybrid model could be the best of both worlds, creating a more sustainable and adaptable marketplace.

 

[Emma]

This is definitely a hot topic! I get both perspectives—artists deserve fair compensation for their work, but traders also want flexibility in their trades. A middle ground like optional royalties or caps could be a good compromise. It would give buyers and sellers more control while still supporting creators. When buying or selling NFTs, I think it’s all about finding a balance that works for both sides while respecting the value each brings to the table.

 

[Mary]

This is definitely a tricky issue. I can see both sides—artists should get paid for their creations, but traders also want to avoid excessive costs when flipping. A possible middle ground could be optional royalties or setting a cap to keep things fair for both parties. When buying or selling NFTs, I think it’s important to consider the value of the artwork and the ongoing relationship between creators and the market, finding a balance that supports both creators and traders.

 

[Isla]

This is a tough one! I get why creators want royalties to stay, as it’s a way to earn from their work long-term, but I also understand traders wanting lower costs when flipping. A middle ground like optional royalties or caps could definitely help strike a balance. Personally, when I buy or sell NFTs, I try to factor in the creator’s value and the tradeoff with the potential for flipping. It’s all about finding that balance between supporting creators and making the market fair for traders!

 

[Harry]

From an economist's perspective, this issue highlights a fundamental tension between incentivizing creators and optimizing market efficiency. The value of royalties lies in their ability to ensure that creators are compensated for the ongoing utility of their work, aligning their financial interests with the long-term success of the NFT. In theory, royalties support sustainable income for artists, encouraging continuous innovation.


However, from the trader's viewpoint, the accumulation of multiple royalty payments can inhibit liquidity and hinder price discovery. As traders are often concerned with short-term profit, the additional transaction costs may deter frequent trading and create friction in market dynamics. This is especially pertinent in a market where liquidity and the ability to flip assets quickly are crucial for traders.

Great take! From the creator's side, royalties are a win, ensuring artists get paid for the ongoing value of their work. But for traders, those extra cuts can feel like a roadblock to quick profits. It’s a bit of a balancing act—creators need to be rewarded for their innovation, but too many royalties can make flipping NFTs less attractive. In the end, it’s all about finding a sweet spot where both creators and traders can thrive without slowing down the market too much. It’s a tricky balance, but that’s what makes this space so interesting!

 

[peterjohn]

From an economist's perspective, this issue highlights a fundamental tension between incentivizing creators and optimizing market efficiency. The value of royalties lies in their ability to ensure that creators are compensated for the ongoing utility of their work, aligning their financial interests with the long-term success of the NFT. In theory, royalties support sustainable income for artists, encouraging continuous innovation.


However, from the trader's viewpoint, the accumulation of multiple royalty payments can inhibit liquidity and hinder price discovery. As traders are often concerned with short-term profit, the additional transaction costs may deter frequent trading and create friction in market dynamics. This is especially pertinent in a market where liquidity and the ability to flip assets quickly are crucial for traders.

Ah, the classic creator vs. trader dilemma! On one side, royalties help keep the artist’s pocket full, rewarding them as their work gains value over time. It’s like giving a tip every time you enjoy a song or artwork again. On the other hand, traders are all about speed and profits, and those royalties can feel like a pesky toll slowing down the hustle. In the end, it's all about finding that sweet spot—keeping creators happy while letting traders flip their assets without too much friction. It’s a tricky balancing act, but that's the beauty of crypto markets!

 

[ELIZA]

Love this take it's such a balanced and thoughtful perspective. In these emerging NFT markets, we're still shaping the rules, and seeing both sides like this is key to long-term growth. Artists absolutely deserve sustainable rewards, especially as we push for global creative equity. At the same time, keeping things trader-friendly helps liquidity and adoption. Optional royalties or capped systems could really be the sweet spot. We're all building this ecosystem together — thoughtful convos like this give me real hope for where it’s headed.

Appreciate the balanced view—finding that middle ground between artist rewards and trader incentives is crucial for building a sustainable NFT ecosystem.