OpenSea vs Blur: How Creator Royalties Shaped the NFT Market War

A creator royalty is a percentage of a resale price that the creator of an NFT sets when the collection is made. Its purpose is to let artists and projects earn from secondary sales, not just the first mint. Royalties were a major source of income for many creators during the early NFT boom, and they became a central feature of marketplace design.

The key point is that a royalty is a term set by the creator, but it is not always enforced by the blockchain. On some networks, the royalty information is stored in a standard that wallets and marketplaces can read. On others, enforcement depends on the marketplace choosing to pay it. This gap is why royalties became contested. A marketplace that stops paying royalties can offer lower trading costs to buyers and sellers, while a marketplace that keeps paying them is cheaper for creators but may be less attractive to traders.

When reading about any NFT marketplace, separate three things: the platform fee the marketplace charges, the creator royalty for the collection, and any network or gas cost. A low headline fee can hide a royalty that the marketplace does not honour, and a high fee can still be worth paying if liquidity and pricing are better. Understanding these parts makes the later debate easier to follow.

In early 2023, Blur published a blog post encouraging users to ban OpenSea, a move that was widely reported as the start of a new phase in the royalty dispute. Blur was a newer marketplace built for professional traders. It aggregated listings from several venues and offered low or zero fees, which made it attractive to people who bought and sold frequently.

OpenSea was the largest marketplace at the time. Its model had long included creator royalties that were set by creators and paid on sales through the platform. Because it was the dominant venue, many creators relied on it for income. When traders moved to Blur, the gap between what traders wanted and what creators were paid became visible.

The result was a public argument about whether marketplaces should enforce royalties at all. Supporters of enforcement argued that creators had agreed to royalty terms when they minted and that removing them undercut the artists who built the collections. Supporters of lower fees argued that traders should be free to choose where they sell and that creators could set royalties in the smart contract if they wanted them enforced everywhere. Both views shaped what came next.

OpenSea's position changed during the period of competition. At first it kept creator royalties as a default and as a basic feature of its marketplace. As Blur gained trading volume, OpenSea said it would stop collecting royalties in some cases, and then it moved creator fees toward an optional model where creators could set their own terms and buyers and sellers could see them on each listing.

This shift is important for readers because it changed what a creator could expect. An optional royalty depends on whether the collection enforces it, whether the seller honours it, and whether the marketplace displays it. Creators who wanted guaranteed income had to rely on on-chain enforcement or on terms that the marketplace would respect.

OpenSea also kept a platform fee on most sales. Reports from the period described a 1% platform fee at one point. Fee levels are not permanent, so the figure should be checked against OpenSea's current fee documentation rather than taken from older articles.

For a reader, the practical lesson is that OpenSea's royalty policy was not a single fixed rule. It was a set of settings that depended on the collection and on the venue. Before you list an item, look at the royalty shown for that item and confirm how the marketplace will handle it.

Blur built its marketplace around professional traders and charged no marketplace fee in its early period. Its royalty approach was different. For many collections, Blur applied a minimum royalty and let creators or projects set their own terms. Reports in 2023 described a minimum enforcement of 0.5% on most collections, while some projects could opt out or set higher amounts.

Blur also let traders list items across several venues and used its own interface for bids and sweeps. This made Blur efficient for users who wanted to buy several items quickly or place many offers. It also meant that the royalty terms a trader faced could vary depending on the collection and on how the listing was made.

Because Blur's model focused on lower costs for traders, it attracted creators who disagreed with its royalty policy. Some collections responded by adding on-chain enforcement, which made royalties harder to skip on any marketplace that respected the contract rules. Others accepted the lower income in exchange for more trading activity.

If you use Blur or any similar venue, read its current fee and royalty pages before each trade. The published rules can change, and a minimum that applied in one period may not apply later. Check what the item page shows for royalties and what you will pay in total, including any network costs.

Trading volume moved to Blur for several reasons. Its low-fee model was one, but speed and tooling mattered too. Professional traders often want to place many bids, respond to price changes quickly and move between collections without friction. Blur's interface was designed around those needs, and its aggregation of listings from multiple venues made it easy to see where an item could be bought.

Reports from early 2023 showed Blur taking a large share of trading volume in a short period. A snapshot from March 2023 reported Blur at a very high share compared with OpenSea, and another analysis described Blur reaching a majority share within months of launch. These figures were tied to a specific period and to how each analytics source counted sales, so they should be read as historical, not as a current ranking.

Volume also responds to incentives. When a marketplace offers rewards or a token, traders may increase activity to earn them, which can inflate volume compared with genuine collector demand. Analysts have debated how much of Blur's early volume reflected this. Readers should keep that caveat in mind when they see any market share figure.

To check current volume, use a live analytics tool that lets you select a time range, separates sales from listings and explains whether wash trades are filtered. Compare several sources rather than relying on one headline number.

The BLUR token was launched to govern the Blur protocol and to reward some users. Token design can strengthen a marketplace's community, but it can also make a platform's trading activity depend on token prices. Reports from February 2023 noted a sharp rise in BLUR's value on one day, and later reports described the token losing much of its value. Price history like this is a reminder that token value is volatile and can move far from the marketplace's real usage.

For anyone trading the token or using a rewards programme, the core question is how rewards are calculated, how long they last and what conditions apply. Rewards that depend on trading volume can encourage activity that does not reflect collector demand. Rewards that vest over time may be paid in tokens whose price can fall before they are sold.

OpenSea's approach to tokens and incentives was different. It expanded beyond NFTs into other digital assets during the period of competition, and it introduced trading tools for traders who wanted lower-fee options. Whatever the model, the same rule applies: the value of any rewards token is uncertain, and the fee or royalty you pay on a sale is a cost you can see at the time of the trade.

Before you rely on a rewards token, read the official documentation, check the current price on a reputable market data source, and decide how much exposure you are comfortable with. Treat rewards as a separate question from the royalty the creator receives.

In response to Blur's growth, OpenSea introduced a zero-fee trading option aimed at professional traders. Reports from April 2023 described OpenSea Pro as a service with no marketplace fee, which kept the creator royalty model in place. Under that design, projects without on-chain royalty enforcement were subject to a minimum royalty of 0.5%, while projects with on-chain enforcement followed their own terms.

This matters because it showed that a marketplace could compete on fees without abandoning creator payments entirely. It also showed that royalty enforcement was becoming more specific. Instead of a single rule for all collections, marketplaces began to distinguish between collections that enforce royalties in the contract and those that do not.

OpenSea's changes also reflected the broader trend of marketplaces competing for traders with lower costs and better tools. For collectors, that competition can mean lower fees and more listing options. For creators, it can mean that royalty income depends on the marketplace's policy and on the collection's own contract design.

When you compare platforms today, look at the fee for the specific tier you will use, the minimum royalty for the collection you plan to trade and whether the item enforces royalties on-chain. Policies can change again, so treat any published rate as the starting point for your own check.

The royalty war changed how creators think about their collections. Many now choose contract standards that make royalties easier to enforce, and they publish clear terms about what they expect from each marketplace. Some have also moved to newer collection designs that do not depend on a single marketplace for royalty income.

For creators, the main steps are practical. Decide whether your royalty will be enforced on-chain or left to marketplace policy. Document the royalty clearly in your collection information. Monitor which marketplaces display and pay your royalty, and adjust your approach if a platform changes its terms. Remember that enforcement on one venue does not guarantee enforcement on every venue.

For collectors, the rivalry is a reminder that the same item can carry different costs depending on where it is traded. A creator royalty may be paid on one platform and skipped on another. The total price you pay includes the marketplace fee, the royalty when it applies and any network cost, so the cheapest headline price is not always the lowest total.

For both groups, the safest habit is to read the current terms of each marketplace and each collection before acting. Policies in this sector have changed several times, and past reporting may not match current practice.

Before you buy or sell an NFT, work through a short checklist. First, open the item page and note the royalty shown for the collection. Second, look up the marketplace's current fee schedule and check whether any tier applies to your trade. Third, confirm whether the collection enforces royalties on-chain, since that determines whether the creator is paid across many venues.

Next, estimate the total cost. Add the sale price, the marketplace fee, the royalty if it applies to your trade, and any network or gas cost. Compare that total across two or three marketplaces. Pay attention to whether the listing is for a fixed price, an auction or a bid, because each can change how fees and royalties are applied.

Finally, check the security of the wallet you use. Only connect your wallet to the official marketplace site, verify the URL yourself rather than following links from messages, and never share your seed phrase or approve transactions you do not understand. Revoke unused token approvals if your wallet tool offers that option.

NFT prices can fall sharply, and fee and royalty policies can change. Decide in advance how much you are willing to spend and what you would do if the value dropped. Treat any single figure in this guide as a snapshot, and verify current terms on the marketplace itself before you trade.