Case note · AlphaTON provider stack

AlphaTON: one TON provider agreement settled — another 1% related-party manager remained separately disclosed.

AlphaTON is a strong currentness control because two manager relationships launched around the same September 2025 financing but did not share the same outcome. The financing-linked DWF MaaS Treasury Management Agreement terminated in a December settlement. A separate discretionary Asset Management Agreement with Alpha Sigma Capital remained disclosed in AlphaTON's 2026 annual-report record.

Agreement family 1 — DWF MaaS treasury management

FieldPublicly disclosed term
ProviderDWF MaaS Limited
Initial managed funding$15 million contributed by DWF in the September 2025 financing
Planned scale-upFurther transfers were contemplated, including a path toward substantially larger managed assets
Profit economicsLater filings describe DWF retaining 100% of profits until its balance reached $150 million, followed by specified yield / profit-sharing economics
Equity compensation160,000 ordinary shares, initially subject to three-year vesting
OutcomeDecember 30, 2025 settlement, mutual release and termination of the Treasury Management Agreement

AlphaTON later disclosed that the planned scale-up did not occur before settlement: only the initial $15 million provider contribution had been placed under DWF management. The settlement included repurchase / return mechanics, removal of restrictions on the provider shares, a $35,000 payment and mutual releases.

Agreement family 2 — Alpha Sigma Capital discretionary asset management

Field2026 annual-report disclosure
ProviderAlpha Sigma Capital, LLC
RoleDiscretionary investment management of designated Account Assets, principally a long-only TON strategy including staking / restaking
Recurring fee1.0% per annum of Account Assets
Asset controlAssets are held in the company's name and remain under company control
Initial termOne year, followed by automatic renewal
Company exit path90 days' notice, provided the company has decided to end the TON digital-asset treasury strategy
Related-party factAlphaTON CIO and Chairman Enzo Villani was disclosed as CEO and CIO of the Asset Manager; Alpha Sigma was also an investor in the September 2025 financing
FY2026 fee evidence$80,918 total paid under the agreement
Managed assets at Mar. 31, 2026Approximately $2.5 million of digital assets
Currentness rule: a terminated provider relationship does not prove the treasury strategy was internalized. Follow every agreement family independently. In AlphaTON's public record, DWF settled and exited while the separate Alpha Sigma discretionary-management agreement remained part of the 2026 disclosure set.

Why this is useful for same-role fee comparison

Alpha Sigma adds a relatively clean 1% discretionary-manager control to the public comparison universe. Its one-year initial term and 90-day company notice path are structurally different from the ten- and twenty-year mandates elsewhere in the DAT market, even before the related-party relationship is considered.

The fee therefore should be compared as a package: 1% rate + discretionary TON scope + one-year renewal cycle + conditional company exit + related-party governance facts.

What this case contributes to a Board / CFO review

The AlphaTON record exposes a common failure mode: combining all treasury-provider economics into one blended “manager” line. DWF and Alpha Sigma had different funding relationships, compensation structures, scopes, termination paths and outcomes. A decision-ready record should keep those families separate before aggregating total provider cost or governance exposure.

Related research

Compare public DAT management agreements →
DAT provider fee normalization →
Related-party DAT agreements →
Observed provider outcomes →

Public-source factual commercial research only. No legal interpretation of enforceability, no fairness or fiduciary conclusion, no accounting or investment opinion, and no recommendation concerning any provider or transaction.

See the $4,900 / 72-hour stress test