Most NFT development pitches jump straight to “which blockchain” and treat everything else as an implementation detail. That leaves two decisions buried that actually shape your revenue and your legal exposure: which token standard fits your asset, and how royalties get enforced once your NFTs hit the secondary market.
EIP-2981 makes royalty information queryable on-chain, but whether a marketplace actually pays it out is a policy choice the marketplace makes, not something the standard guarantees. If your business model depends on resale royalties, that’s not a technical footnote. We map your royalty strategy, including which marketplaces will honor it and where you may need a custom enforcement layer, before we touch contract code.
The same applies to standard selection. ERC-721 fits one-of-one assets. ERC-1155 fits gaming inventories and edition-based drops. ERC-6551 gives an NFT its own on-chain wallet, useful when a token needs to hold other assets, such as a game character owning its own items, or a phygital product accumulating a provenance trail over time.
Standard Fit Assessment
We walk through your asset type, mint volume, and post-mint behavior to confirm which standard actually fits before scoping the contract.
Royalty Enforcement Strategy
We identify which target marketplaces enforce EIP-2981 royalties and design a fallback mechanism, such as transfer-restricted logic, where they don’t.
Metadata Permanence Plan
We decide upfront whether metadata needs to be fully on-chain, hybrid, or off-chain with cryptographic hashing, based on how legally load-bearing the metadata is.
Chain and Gas Model
We select L2s like Zora, Base, or Polygon for high-volume mints, and reserve L1 Ethereum for high-value assets where settlement finality matters more than gas cost.
