Blur Review

Blur is rated in the NFT marketplaces category on five equally weighted criteria. This entry is desk research from Blur's own pages, the Blur Foundation documentation and Etherscan, checked on 1 November 2026. It is not a hands-on test. The overall score is 4.0 out of 10, up from 2.8 in July, because two marks now rest on evidence the earlier check did not reach.

How Blur scores in NFT marketplaces

Each criterion carries the same weight, so the score is the plain average: (6 + 2 + 6 + 2 + 4) / 5 = 20 / 5 = 4.0.

Two marks changed in this check. Licence & code openness rose from 2 to 6 after we read the verified Exchange V2 source on Etherscan, where Blur's own contract files declare an MIT licence. Verification & audits rose from 2 to 4 because the Blur Foundation's audits page links three audit reports. The other three marks are unchanged, because the evidence behind them has not moved.

Where Blur scores best

Fees: a clear headline with a stated ceiling

Blur's homepage lists "0% Marketplace fees", and that is the rate a trader sees today. The foundation's governance page adds one thing a reader needs: BLUR holders can vote to set a marketplace protocol fee of up to 2.5%, and separate lender and borrower fees for Blend. So the zero rate is a current setting, not a fixed rule. The mark stays at 6 for two reasons. The page says these powers apply "after 180 days" without giving a start date, and no fee schedule is published for Blend. Gas is a separate cost on every trade; our explainer on how Ethereum gas works covers it.

Readable contract source

The foundation's contracts page lists six mainnet addresses, including the Exchange V2 proxy. On Etherscan that proxy points to an implementation named BlurExchangeV2. Its source is verified, with an "Exact Match" against the deployed code. Blur's own files in that source begin with an MIT licence identifier, and one helper adapted from an outside library is marked AGPL-3.0. Etherscan's own licence field for the contract reads "-NA-", and Blur's GitHub organisation holds only a fork of another project. The code can be read and reused under a stated licence, but only through the block explorer, with no maintained repository, change history or issue tracker. That is why the mark is 6 rather than the 10 given to peers that publish MIT-licensed repositories.

Where Blur falls short

Royalty policy: a deficiency

None of the pages we opened states whether Blur pays creator royalties, at what rate, or who pays them. The governance page says only that the Marketplace Committee "executes policy decisions around highly dynamic subjects, such as royalties." That tells a reader who decides, not what the rule is. The rubric scores what a seller or creator can learn before trading, and here that is almost nothing, so the mark stays at 2. Check the amount at checkout before you accept a sale.

Chain coverage: a deficiency of disclosure

Blur does not state which networks it supports. The homepage mentions Blast only as the layer 2 behind Season 3 rewards, not as a trading venue. The contracts page lists addresses without naming a network. We confirmed on Etherscan that the exchange contract is on Ethereum mainnet. We give the same 2 to other entries that do not state their chains.

Audits: published, but not attributable

The audits page links three reports, labelled Blur Audit, Blur v2 Audit and Blend Audit. That counts for something, because some peers link none. But the links open file downloads on Google Drive, and the page does not say who carried out the work or when. We did not open the files, so we cannot say what they cover or whether findings were fixed. The mark of 4 sits between entries with no audit record (2) and entries that name the auditor and scope beside the code (9). If the auditor and dates were named on the page, the mark would be re-checked.

What the score does not cover

• Liquidity, trading volume and price execution. The homepage reports $7.4 billion total GMV and 324,966 users. Those are Blur's own figures, and the rubric does not score them.
• Blend loan terms, liquidation risk and the BLUR token. None of these is a criterion here, and nothing in this review is a view on the token's price.
• The operator's legal identity and terms of service. These belong to the company profile, not to this rubric.
• Wallet safety. Signing a malicious listing or approval is the most common way NFT traders lose assets; see our guide to avoiding wallet scams and phishing.

Blur vs OpenSea, Tensor and SuperRare

These comparisons use only the marks currently recorded for each rated peer.

• OpenSea scores 8.4 and leads Blur on all five criteria. It scores 8 on fees against Blur's 6, with a published 1% selling fee and a 10% primary mint fee, 7 on royalties and 8 on chains against Blur's 2 each, and has an MIT-licensed Seaport repository (10) and a named audit by Trail of Bits (9), against Blur's 6 and 4.
• Tensor scores 7.2. Its fee (9) and royalty (9) disclosures are among the most specific in the category, and it also scores above Blur on licence (9, for Apache-2.0 programs) and audits (5, for named firms whose reports are available on request).
• SuperRare scores 6.2. It publishes every fee and royalty figure (9 and 8) and MIT-licensed marketplace contracts (8), but names no audit (2, below Blur's 4) and runs on Ethereum only (4).

The pattern is that Blur's score now comes from its fee statement, code and audit links, while peers that also publish their royalty rules and chain lists score higher. At 4.0, Blur is eighth of eight. The full table is in the NFT marketplace ratings.

Who this score suits

The score is most useful to traders on Ethereum who care about fees and want to know the exchange code can be inspected. It is less useful to creators. Blur publishes no royalty rule, so anyone whose income depends on secondary-sale royalties gets no answer from this marketplace's own documentation. The score is a measure of what Blur discloses. It is not a recommendation to trade there.