Over the past two days, I’ve seen the royalty debate on the secondary market flare up again. To put it simply, everyone wants to be able to trade “more freely,” but creators also do need to eat. My take is that royalties are like that little bit of friction cost in an AMM—without it, things would probably flow more smoothly, but if it’s completely gone, long-term who would still be willing to add “content” as an asset into the pool? It’s not really moral blackmail; it’s that the incentive structure would change.

The community is still fixated on that extreme scenario with funding rates, getting stuck on whether to reverse it or keep squeezing the bubble. Honestly, it’s pretty similar to the royalty controversy: in the short term, everyone wants to push costs to the absolute minimum, but in the long run, it may end up thinning out the ecosystem. In any case, when I buy NFTs or subscription-based items, I care more about whether the project clearly explains “how the royalties will be used.” Otherwise, no matter how the arguments end, the result will just be mutual distrust.

The thing I fear missing isn’t actually opportunities—it’s being the push that wears down someone who can slowly create works until they no longer want to keep doing it.