Can a zero marketplace fee still leave a higher purchase total?

Yes. A zero marketplace charge doesn’t remove the executable order amount, Ethereum gas or a required payment-asset conversion cost. A creator deduction may also affect seller proceeds even when it doesn’t increase the buyer’s debit. Compare the final wallet request and keep seller-side deductions outside the buyer total unless the selected route explicitly passes them to the buyer.

Does declining a wallet request consume gas?

No. Declining a wallet request before signing and broadcasting doesn’t create an on-chain transaction, so the network can’t charge gas. A submitted transaction is different: if it later reverts, it can still consume gas. Check whether the wallet shows only a signature request, a pending transaction hash or a completed receipt before classifying the cost.

Are creator fees identical for every LooksRare collection?

No. Creator fee logic can vary by collection and route, while the selected order source may apply its own rules. Treat the amount shown for the exact executable order as an input to seller net, not as a permanent LooksRare-wide percentage. If a quote omits a creator fee, don’t copy a percentage from another collection into the comparison.

When can ETH and WETH quotes be compared directly?

Compare them directly only when neither route requires an additional wrap, unwrap or token approval. ETH pays Ethereum gas, while WETH is an ERC-20 token used by some orders. Equal face amounts don’t guarantee equal execution cost because the wallet’s balances and required transactions can differ. Keep conversion and approval gas beside the route that causes each action.

Is the wallet’s maximum gas fee necessarily the final charge?

No. A maximum fee is a spending cap per gas unit, not a promise that the transaction will use that entire amount. The final charge follows the gas actually used and the effective gas price recorded in the receipt. Unused room under the cap isn’t a marketplace discount and shouldn’t appear as a paid cost in the reconciled total.

Could a batch purchase lower the gas cost per NFT?

It can because one transaction may share execution overhead across several purchases. The batch can still use more total gas than a single purchase, and source-marketplace terms remain attached to their orders. If non-atomic execution settles only part of the batch, calculate cost per acquired NFT from the actual receipt and completed transfers rather than the original item count.

Should an approval transaction appear in every fee comparison?

Only include an approval when the wallet lacks the permission that the selected route requires. An existing sufficient approval removes that transaction from the required path. A revoked or incompatible approval means the selected route needs a new one. Count the approval’s estimated gas separately from settlement, then replace the estimate with the receipt if the approval is broadcast.

Looks rare

Looks rare fees require route-by-route normalization of costs and price impact

Sep. 17, 2026 - last updated

Looks rare fees become comparable only after you separate the NFT payment, seller-side deductions, buyer-paid gas and any source-specific charge. Keep price impact outside the marketplace subtotal. When the route converts an asset through liquidity, add conversion impact to the all-in comparison using the same asset amount, recipient and decision time for every quote.

Cost components that follow the route

The selected order source determines which marketplace rules apply, while the wallet action identifies who pays network gas. A native LooksRare order can carry protocol and creator fee components. An aggregated order may inherit different terms from the marketplace that supplied it. The displayed NFT amount alone doesn’t reveal those distinctions.

Wallet state also changes the comparison. A route that needs a token approval creates an additional on-chain cost when the required permission is absent or insufficient. An existing valid approval can remove that transaction from the immediate path. Likewise, a buyer who already holds the payment asset avoids the conversion cost that another buyer would face.

A common boundary for every quote

A fair comparison starts with the wallet’s present state and ends with the intended NFT acquired by the recipient. Hold the collection contract, token ID, quantity, payment asset and recipient constant. Compare executable orders at the same time because an expired, filled or cancelled order isn’t a usable alternative.

For a buyer, the normalized total is the executable order amount plus buyer-paid route charges, required approval gas, settlement gas and any necessary payment-asset conversion cost. Add a component only once. A fee deducted from seller proceeds doesn’t become another buyer charge unless the selected route explicitly passes it to the buyer.

A common boundary for every quote: A fair comparison starts with the wallet’s present state and ends with the intended NFT acquired by the recipient.; Hold the collection contract, token ID, quantity, payment asset and recipient constant. Compare executable orders at the same time because an expired, filled or cancelled order isn’t a usable alternative.

Open full-size image

Keep seller economics in a parallel calculation. Seller net starts with the execution price and subtracts protocol fees, creator fees and seller-paid gas. Combining that figure with buyer outlay creates a misleading total because the two wallets don’t bear the same costs.

Six inputs behind a comparable total

Each quote needs the same six cost inputs or an explicit statement that an input doesn’t apply. The table separates amounts that affect buyer outlay, seller proceeds and an optional asset conversion.

Cost input	Normalized value	What determines the value
Order payment	Executable amount in the order currency	Maker terms and the matching strategy set the settlement amount
Protocol fee	Configured deduction from the execution price	Strategy parameters govern the seller-side deduction within deployed bounds
Creator fee	Collection-specific deduction when fee logic returns one	Creator fee logic determines the recipient and amount
Source-route charge	Included only when the selected source or proxy applies it	The source protocol or proxy configuration controls the charge
Network gas	Estimated gas units × estimated effective price per gas	The sender sets fee caps while network conditions determine the effective rate
Conversion impact	Difference between the no-impact reference and quoted conversion output	Conversion size and available liquidity determine the difference
Comparable total	Buyer outlay and seller net remain separate	The latest executable quote sets the preflight comparison; receipts and transfers supply settled costs

For one hypothetical comparison, take a 2.42 ETH order, a 0.013 ETH buyer-side route charge and 0.006 ETH of estimated gas. Before any conversion, the buyer subtotal is 2.439 ETH. These hypothetical inputs show the arithmetic and aren’t a current LooksRare quote.

If the buyer already holds ETH, the comparison can stop at that subtotal. If another route requires a conversion whose output is 0.009 ETH worse than its no-impact reference, its all-in comparison becomes 2.448 ETH. After settlement, replace estimated gas with the receipt’s actual cost and reconcile the conversion from the settled input and output.

Buyer outlay and seller proceeds

LooksRare v2 can take protocol and creator fee components from the execution price before the seller receives proceeds. That design makes the execution price a shared reference, not a complete description of either wallet’s economics. On a direct purchase, the buyer may pay the order amount and gas while the seller receives the order amount after applicable deductions. An external order reached through the aggregator can follow its source protocol’s fee treatment, so its final quote deserves a separate calculation.

When does price impact belong in the comparison?

Price impact belongs in the calculation only when the route trades against available liquidity, such as converting another asset into the required payment asset. It measures the difference between the quoted conversion and a no-impact reference for the same order size. It isn’t another name for marketplace fees or Ethereum gas.

A fixed-price NFT order doesn’t create automated-market-maker price impact merely because its price differs from a collection floor. That difference may reflect another token, stale display data or distinct seller terms. Slippage is also separate: it sets the acceptable execution boundary when a conversion quote can move before settlement. Keep the quoted conversion output, price impact and slippage limit in their proper roles.

Gas estimates and execution timing

On Ethereum, the gas fee equals the gas used multiplied by the effective price per gas. Both inputs remain estimates before execution. Contract calls can consume different gas amounts as transaction contents and on-chain state change, while the effective price responds to the block’s base fee and the sender’s priority setting.

The wallet that broadcasts an on-chain action pays its gas. A buyer normally pays for a fixed-price purchase transaction, while a seller accepting an offer may broadcast the settlement instead. An off-chain order signature doesn’t itself consume gas. A separate approval or cancellation transaction does once the network includes it.

Time-align competing estimates because a gas quote captured earlier can make one route appear cheaper for the wrong reason. A reverted transaction can still consume gas even though the NFT doesn’t transfer. The receipt, rather than the wallet’s preflight estimate, supplies the final gas used and effective gas price.

Direct and aggregated order economics

The order source controls the relevant fee model. LooksRare’s aggregator can route orders through source-specific proxies, so an order displayed in one interface doesn’t necessarily settle under the native LooksRare protocol’s parameters. Record the source, payment asset, executable amount and buyer-side additions for each candidate. Aggregation may combine purchases into one transaction, yet shared execution doesn’t erase the source terms attached to each order or guarantee the lowest gas total.

Reconciliation after settlement

Actual cost comes from the receipt and resulting asset transfers. Multiply receipt gas used by its effective gas price, then add that amount to the buyer-paid settlement and any earlier approval cost. Transaction traces show native-asset payments, while fungible-token transfer logs show token payments. The NFT transfer confirms which asset and quantity reached the recipient.

For seller proceeds, compare the execution price with the fungible-token amounts that reached the seller and fee recipients. If a payment-asset conversion preceded the purchase, reconcile the input spent and output received rather than preserving the earlier estimate. Concurrent wallet activity can change balances, so transaction-level transfers provide a cleaner basis than a simple before-and-after balance difference.

Failed execution and unrecoverable gas

A reverted settlement leaves the NFT order unfilled but can still create a network cost. A successful approval that precedes a failed purchase also remains a completed transaction, and its authorization may persist. Non-atomic multi-purchase execution can settle some orders while others fail, so allocate the actual transaction gas across the completed acquisition rather than treating each failed order as a separate zero-cost route.

Pre-broadcast route comparison

The final reversible point is before the settlement transaction is broadcast. Refresh each executable quote, preserve the same NFT and recipient and compare the wallet’s requested debit with the normalized total. A route with a smaller protocol deduction can still cost the buyer more if it adds a source charge, an approval, higher gas or a payment-asset conversion.

When the difference between routes is smaller than the changing gas estimate, neither quote supports a stable cheapest-route claim. The hypothetical 2.42 ETH comparison shows the boundary: a conversion changes the reference from the 2.439 ETH marketplace subtotal to a 2.448 ETH all-in amount. Choose using the estimated all-in amount, not the smallest isolated fee, then reconcile the result after settlement.

Frequently asked questions about Looks rare fees

Can a zero marketplace fee still leave a higher purchase total?: Yes. A zero marketplace charge doesn’t remove the executable order amount, Ethereum gas or a required payment-asset conversion cost. A creator deduction may also affect seller proceeds even when it doesn’t increase the buyer’s debit. Compare the final wallet request and keep seller-side deductions outside the buyer total unless the selected route explicitly passes them to the buyer.
Does declining a wallet request consume gas?: No. Declining a wallet request before signing and broadcasting doesn’t create an on-chain transaction, so the network can’t charge gas. A submitted transaction is different: if it later reverts, it can still consume gas. Check whether the wallet shows only a signature request, a pending transaction hash or a completed receipt before classifying the cost.
Are creator fees identical for every LooksRare collection?: No. Creator fee logic can vary by collection and route, while the selected order source may apply its own rules. Treat the amount shown for the exact executable order as an input to seller net, not as a permanent LooksRare-wide percentage. If a quote omits a creator fee, don’t copy a percentage from another collection into the comparison.
When can ETH and WETH quotes be compared directly?: Compare them directly only when neither route requires an additional wrap, unwrap or token approval. ETH pays Ethereum gas, while WETH is an ERC-20 token used by some orders. Equal face amounts don’t guarantee equal execution cost because the wallet’s balances and required transactions can differ. Keep conversion and approval gas beside the route that causes each action.
Is the wallet’s maximum gas fee necessarily the final charge?: No. A maximum fee is a spending cap per gas unit, not a promise that the transaction will use that entire amount. The final charge follows the gas actually used and the effective gas price recorded in the receipt. Unused room under the cap isn’t a marketplace discount and shouldn’t appear as a paid cost in the reconciled total.
Could a batch purchase lower the gas cost per NFT?: It can because one transaction may share execution overhead across several purchases. The batch can still use more total gas than a single purchase, and source-marketplace terms remain attached to their orders. If non-atomic execution settles only part of the batch, calculate cost per acquired NFT from the actual receipt and completed transfers rather than the original item count.
Should an approval transaction appear in every fee comparison?: Only include an approval when the wallet lacks the permission that the selected route requires. An existing sufficient approval removes that transaction from the required path. A revoked or incompatible approval means the selected route needs a new one. Count the approval’s estimated gas separately from settlement, then replace the estimate with the receipt if the approval is broadcast.