SkyTrade Promises Drone Air Rights Income — But the Legal Foundation Is Shaky

A blockchain startup is offering property owners the chance to monetize low-altitude airspace for drone operations. Legal experts say the underlying property rights don’t exist under current law.

SkyTrade, a Delaware-based startup, is building what it calls the world’s first marketplace for air rights, promising property owners they can earn passive income by renting airspace above their homes to drone delivery companies. The platform has received funding from the Solana Foundation and was featured in tech media as a revolutionary approach to unlocking a “$30 trillion market.”

There’s just one problem: the property rights SkyTrade claims to be monetizing don’t legally exist under current U.S. aviation law.

October 20th update: We updated this article with the discussion that followed on X. Please see below.

The Pitch: Turn Your Airspace Into Cash

SkyTrade’s website promises homeowners they can “claim your air rights” and “start to receive income” from their low-altitude airspace. The platform claims air rights “can reach over $400” per cubic foot and that property owners can “earn thousands of dollars a year” by allowing drone companies to fly through their airspace.

The startup uses blockchain technology to tokenize air rights as compressed NFTs on the Solana network. Property owners can supposedly register their airspace, set usage limits, and collect fees when drones fly overhead. The platform markets itself with language emphasizing “decentralized Air Rights network” and includes a referral program encouraging users to “refer others to join SkyTrade’s decentralized Air Rights network and collectively soar to new heights while earning more.”

SkyTrade co-founder Jonathan Dockrell told Blockworks he realized while working at a delivery company that “property owners actually have the air rights to the 500 feet above themselves.”

The Reality: FAA Controls Low-Altitude Airspace

The legal reality directly contradicts SkyTrade’s business model.

According to aviation law experts, “drone owners are free to fly these aircraft over private property, subject to FAA rules, without getting permission from the property owner.” The Federal Aviation Administration maintains regulatory authority over all navigable airspace in the United States, which courts have interpreted to include low-altitude drone operations.

The FAA’s own guidance makes no mention of requiring property owner permission for drone flights, provided operators follow Part 107 regulations or recreational flying rules. Pilots must maintain visual line of sight, stay below 400 feet in uncontrolled airspace, and avoid hazards — but nowhere in federal regulations is there a requirement to pay property owners for airspace access.

Legal scholars have noted the confusion. A 2017 analysis by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies stated that “the FAA’s regulatory taking of millions of cubic miles of private airspace/property” raises serious concerns, but emphasized that under current law, the FAA maintains this authority.

Traditional Air Rights vs. Drone Flight Paths

SkyTrade’s marketing cleverly conflates two completely different legal concepts.

Traditional air rights — the kind that ARE real and valuable — involve the right to build structures in the space above existing buildings. These development rights can be worth millions. Ken Griffin, the billionaire hedge fund operator, reportedly paid $164 million for airspace above St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan to build a nearby skyscraper.

But those building development rights are fundamentally different from charging drone operators for flight corridors. Property owners can sell the right to construct a condominium tower above railroad tracks. They cannot — under current law — charge Amazon for delivery drone overflight.

A 2018 legal analysis noted that while property owners historically owned airspace “at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use,” modern aviation law has dramatically changed this equation. The analysis concluded that “the fundamental property question is highly unsettled” when it comes to low-altitude drones.

The Unresolved Legal Gray Zone

To be fair, property rights over low-altitude airspace remain contested legal territory.

Some legal scholars argue property owners should have rights to exclude drones from the immediate airspace above their homes. A 2023 survey found more than three in four Americans believe residential landowners should be entitled to prevent frequent commercial drone flights over their homes.

Legislative proposals have attempted to address this gap. In 2019, Senator Mike Lee proposed a bill that would grant property owners exclusive control of airspace up to 200 feet above their land. The bill never passed.

The key distinction: SkyTrade is selling property owners rights they hope will exist in the future, not rights that are established in current law.

Name Confusion With Confirmed Scams

Adding to concerns, SkyTrade shares a confusingly similar name with multiple confirmed scam operations.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority warned in August 2024 that “SKYTRADE ASSET COMPANY is not authorised or registered by the FCA” and “may be providing or promoting financial services or products without our permission.” Multiple investor protection sites have flagged various “SkyTrade” operations as fraudulent forex and trading scams.

The legitimate SkyTrade platform at sky.trade appears to be an entirely separate entity from these confirmed scams. However, the name similarity creates dangerous confusion for consumers trying to assess credibility.

Crypto Red Flags

SkyTrade’s platform exhibits several characteristics common to speculative cryptocurrency projects.

The startup uses blockchain tokenization and NFTs — technologies that can add complexity without clear functional benefits for this use case. The platform includes “SKY Points” rewards and encourages users to “refer others” to earn more, language reminiscent of multi-level marketing schemes.

Most concerning, SkyTrade is accepting money from property owners to register and claim air rights that provide no legally enforceable exclusion power today. The website scamadviser.com gave an earlier SkyTrade domain “a very low trust score” though this may have referred to the separate scam operations.

What Drone Pilots Need to Know

For drone operators, current FAA regulations remain unchanged.

You can legally fly over private property up to 400 feet in uncontrolled airspace without seeking landowner permission, provided you follow all Part 107 or recreational flying rules. No property owner can currently charge you for airspace transit.

However, responsible pilots should still respect privacy. Flying low over backyards, hovering near windows, or conducting surveillance can trigger civil complaints even if technically legal. Best practices include avoiding unnecessary low-altitude flight over homes and making your professional operations visible to reduce privacy concerns.

What Property Owners Should Know

If you own property, be extremely cautious before paying SkyTrade any fees.

While the platform may envision a future where property owners can monetize drone airspace, that legal framework does not exist today. You cannot currently enforce exclusion of drones from your airspace or collect fees from drone operators under federal law.

SkyTrade’s FAQ acknowledges they “take a small fee” when air rights are used and that there “may be an administration fee to verify the identity of property owners.” Paying to register air rights that carry no legal enforcement mechanism is questionable at best.

DroneXL’s Take

SkyTrade represents a fascinating case study in putting the cart before the horse.

The startup has identified a real tension in aviation law. As drone delivery scales, questions about low-altitude airspace rights will demand answers. Property owners do have legitimate privacy and autonomy concerns about commercial drones crisscrossing residential areas. The current legal framework arguably needs updating for the drone age.

But SkyTrade is selling a solution to a problem that hasn’t been legally solved yet. They’re tokenizing and monetizing property rights that don’t exist under current law, hoping the legal framework will eventually catch up to validate their marketplace.

This isn’t necessarily a traditional scam — the founders appear to genuinely believe in their vision, and they’ve secured legitimate funding. But it’s deeply problematic to collect money from property owners for air rights registration when those rights carry no current legal weight.

The comparison to traditional building air rights is misleading. Ken Griffin’s $164 million air rights purchase gave him legally enforceable development rights. A property owner who “claims” their airspace on SkyTrade gets a tokenized NFT with no legal power to exclude drones or compel payment.

If Congress eventually passes legislation granting property owners low-altitude airspace rights, SkyTrade could become a valuable marketplace. Until then, it’s a speculative bet being marketed as a present-day money-making opportunity.

Property owners should not pay fees to claim air rights they cannot legally enforce. Drone pilots should understand their current legal rights while being prepared for potential future legislation that could change the landscape. And everyone should watch this space carefully — because the battle over low-altitude airspace rights is far from over.

What do you think? Should property owners be able to charge for low-altitude drone access, or does the FAA’s authority over airspace serve the greater good? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

---

Update: After posting this article, Skytrade and DroneXL had a discussion on X, which I will post below both on request from Skytrade and for the sake of providing as complete a picture as possible.

Skytrade: Property rights don’t exist – wdym ?

DroneXL: Real simple. You cannot sell something that you do not own.

Skytrade: That’s right, you can trade what you own.

DroneXL: Jonathan, thank you for your comment. You’re absolutely right that we should have reached out for comment before publication – that’s fair criticism and we’ll do better.

However, your statement that “air rights are part of the bundle of property rights” is precisely the conflation our article addresses. You’re technically correct, but you’re applying it to the wrong type of airspace. There are TWO completely different types of “air rights”:

• Development air rights (what Penn Station sold to MSG) – the right to BUILD structures in the space above property
• Transit air rights (what SkyTrade claims to sell) – the right to EXCLUDE aircraft from passing through airspace

Under current federal law, property owners have #1 but NOT #2 for drone operations. The FAA regulates navigable airspace from the ground up for aircraft transit. Even the landmark 1946 United States v. Causby case – which established that low-flying military planes violated property rights – resulted in the government PAYING COMPENSATION for the taking, not recognizing an owner’s right to charge for transit or exclude aircraft.

We’d be happy to update the article with any statement you’d like to provide about:

• Which drone delivery companies have actually paid property owners through your platform
• How many property owners have received income (not just SKY Points)
• Your legal basis for claiming owners can charge for drone transit under current law

The article stands on solid legal ground, but we’re open to adding your perspective.

Skytrade: Few things need to be unpicked here, and to be fair I understand where you’re coming from, but drones don’t have any special place in the constitution- property rights do. And with incentivized communities and permitted skies more drones will fly.

So the unpick. You say: “air rights are part of the bundle of property rights” …..You’re technically correct, but you’re applying it to the wrong type of airspace.”

>These types of airspace you mention are nebulous, it’s just property rights- >Technically is what matters. The right to transact your property including air rights is not just about building or flying.

You say “The FAA regulates navigable airspace from the ground up for aircraft transit.”

>This is correct, for certain regulatory matters, but is not ownership, that would be a taking.

>In addition as you know, states deal with low-altitude airspace, excluding safety and hardware approvals. In fact many states have legislated that air rights are vested in the property owner, so no need to rely only on case and constitutional law any more. You said “planes violated property rights – resulted in the government PAYING COMPENSATION for the taking”

>This payment was the remedy for violating the owners property rights. The remedy for trespass is rent.

The FAA do not own people’s property rights, if they did they would be getting dividends from air rights trades.

DroneXL: Jonathan, I appreciate the discussion, however, I must respectfully correct a few points:

On Causby: The Supreme Court awarded Causby one-time compensation of $2,000 for a Fifth Amendment taking. The government then continued flying without his permission or paying rent. If property owners could charge “rent” for aircraft transit, Causby would have received ongoing payments. He didn’t. The Court stated: “The air is a public highway” — affirming airspace as public domain, not private property that can be rented.

On state laws: While some states have passed drone-related laws, 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1) gives the federal government “exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.” Courts have repeatedly struck down state/local attempts to regulate flight paths or altitudes (see Singer v. City of Newton, 2017). States can regulate privacy, trespass, and takeoff/landing locations — but not aircraft operations or navigable airspace.

The core distinction: Development rights (Penn Station/MSG) involve physical structures and have been legally enforceable for over a century. Transit rights (charging for drone overflight) are not recognized under current federal aviation law. These aren’t “nebulous” — they’re fundamentally different legal concepts.

Your vision of monetizable low-altitude airspace rights may come to pass if Congress acts. But under current law, property owners cannot charge drone operators for routine overflight. That’s the point our article makes.

We’d be happy to update the article with data showing which drone companies have paid property owners through your platform and how many owners have received actual income.

Best of luck with your venture.

Skytrade: Thanks for the discussion, again would have been better to chat pre article, which was not good.

Fundamentally it is property rights we are discussing. What you term transit rights and development rights are property rights.

The right to own, transact, and exclude is a fundamental principle of those rights.

We agree Causby confirms the airspace is owned by the property owner, many state laws have vested these air rights in the property owner.

You seem to believe that payment for access to private airspace is not permitted and this is the nub of your position. Although via easements and private contracts air rights access is permitted and air rights trade regularly.

Best, flying safe

DroneXL: You’re wrong

Skytrade: No. I’m right , but I understand why you don’t want to believe it

A #blockchain startup is offering property owners the chance to monetize low-altitude airspace for #drone operations. Legal experts say the underlying property rights don’t exist under current law. @SkyTradeNetwork , a Delaware-based startup, is…https://t.co/3KjjhOAi3j

— DRONEXL.co (@DroneXL1) October 18, 2025