Royalties: A Golden Handcuff?
Jack Butcher’s recent reinterpretation of NFT royalties is making waves, and with good reason. His main point is that basing your funding strategy on royalties is the equivalent of getting paid on churn. Ouch. It's a provocative take, and it forces us to question the fundamental assumptions we've made about how artists should be compensated in the digital age.
Think about it: are royalties truly empowering artists, or are they inadvertently incentivizing them to chase hype and fleeting trends instead of focusing on genuine, long-term creative output? Are we paying artists to make excellent art, or make art that is easily traded?
The old model is broken. The traditional art world is notoriously gatekept. Southeast Asia is teeming with phenomenal creative talent. Accessing the global art market can be an intimidating hurdle to overcome. Galleries take massive percentages, and the whole system is rigged in favor of proven names. NFTs promised to do just that, to democratize access and put artists back in direct control. Are royalties really pushing back against that trend for these new and developing artists, or are they simply providing a different kind of reliance?
Southeast Asia's Zero-Royalty Revolution
Now, picture that same young digital artist in Jakarta, who lives paycheck to paycheck. Yet the promise of NFTs – direct access to a global audience – is highly seductive. Yet the truth is that the overwhelming majority of NFT projects fail to bring in meaningful revenue through secondary market sales. So, those promised royalties? Too frequently, they end up being nothing more than that – a promise.
Now, consider Butcher's argument. What if this visual artist released their claim to future royalties? Rather, they can build a greater career by making exciting work and choosing smart prices right out of the gate. What if instead, they developed a more direct connection with their supporters by cultivating a community of people invested in their creative work.
This is where the zero-royalty model becomes super interesting, particularly for artists in emerging regions of Southeast Asia. It drives them to pursue entrepreneurship. They then become much more intentional about building a sustainable business model around their art rather than waiting and wishing for that passive income to just appear. It’s not about generating more volume at all costs, it’s about delivering value.
Unexpected connection: It's like comparing a seasoned Silicon Valley entrepreneur bootstrapping their startup versus a lottery winner suddenly flush with cash. Which of those two will be better-positioned to create something truly lasting and remarkable? The former, almost certainly. But scarcity produces ingenuity—and that’s exactly what the zero-royalty model incentivizes.
Empowerment or Exploitation?
Of course, no-royalty stance is not without its critics. Opponents claim it unnecessarily exploits artists, denying them fair payment for the long-term value of their works. They argue by example to the existing traditional art world market as where artists do get paid resale royalties.
The traditional art world is not a paragon of fairness. It’s a very opaque and frequently predatory system. To compare that to the nascent, chaotic, wild world of NFTs is truly apples to oranges. We’re creating a new enterprise here, one in which it can and should be different.
This model is zero-royalty, which seems scary and unsustainable but is actually the only way to achieve real artistic freedom. To survive in this new paradigm, artists need to be the drivers of their careers. Instead, they need to develop distinct brands and direct-to-collector relationships of their own. It's not a handout, it's a challenge. And for new and independent artists based in Southeast Asia and beyond, it can be exactly the form of disruption they need to survive and flourish.
Jack Butcher’s personal story is evidence enough of the power of this insight. First, he made a brand. He not only created incredible content through Visualize Value, he got his hands dirty and played around with the technology. Checks and Opepen weren’t designed to be royalty-generating machines. They were web3 experiments in the culture of the internets. And they won exactly because they were genuine, creative and grassroots.
| Feature | Traditional Royalties | Zero-Royalty Model |
|---|---|---|
| Income Source | Passive, dependent on secondary sales | Active, driven by initial sales and community building |
| Artist Control | Limited | High |
| Entrepreneurialism | Discouraged | Encouraged |
| Accessibility (Emerging Artists) | Low | High |
At the end of the day, the fight against NFT royalties is not about revenue. It’s about control. It's about who controls the narrative, who benefits from the value created, and who gets to define the future of art in the digital age. It is here that Jack Butcher’s contrarian view makes its most vital contribution to the public conversation. It dares us to reimagine what’s possible and push past our assumptions toward deeper impact—for artists and all communities that require it the most.
Perhaps where we go from here is not trying to hold on tooth and nail to old models. Rather, it’s high time we usher in a new age of artistic autonomy powered by imagination, civic engagement, and wanton entrepreneurial zeal. It’s a future where artists are free to create and control their own empire, one NFT at a time. If you’re a maker this is a great time to be alive! For artists all over the world—it’s never been easier to succeed. Imagine the possibilities. Imagine the impact.
Perhaps the future isn't about clinging to the old models, but about embracing a new era of artistic independence, driven by creativity, community, and a healthy dose of entrepreneurial spirit. It's a future where artists are empowered to build their own empires, one NFT at a time. This is an exciting time to be alive, and the potential for artists from all over the world to thrive has never been greater. Imagine the possibilities. Imagine the impact.
