Case note · Eightco / Worldcoin Tower + ARK

Eightco: the fee changed, the denominator broadened, and a second provider stack arrived.

Eightco's public record is unusually useful for currentness work. The original Worldcoin Tower agreement used a declining AUM fee schedule. A May 2026 amended and restated agreement replaced that schedule with a flat 1% fee over a broader asset base while retaining long-duration exit economics. Weeks later, Eightco separately disclosed a broad ARK advisory / treasury-management arrangement with its own management fee, warrants, Board-advisor compensation and milestone economics.

Worldcoin Tower: original → amended

FieldSeptember 2025 originalMay 2026 amended / restated
ScopeDigital Asset Treasury StrategyBroader Strategic Asset Strategy: digital-asset treasury plus investments in emerging companies
Recurring fee1.00% up to $1B AUM; 0.50% from $1B–$5B; 0.25% above $5B1.00% per year of AUM including both Treasury Assets and Investment Assets
MilestonesDisclosed milestones tied to treasury AUM above $2B and $20BOne-time incentive milestones when AUM first reaches $1B, $5B and $10B
Setup fee$150,000Agreement restated in full; later filings emphasize the new recurring and milestone structure
DurationFive-year initial term with automatic renewalFiled A&R text specifies an initial 5-year term, then automatic 5-year first and second renewal terms unless terminated for Cause

The fee reset is economically larger than a rate change

The original fee schedule became cheaper as AUM grew. The amended agreement replaced that tiered schedule with a flat 1% rate and simultaneously expanded the denominator to include both Treasury Assets and Investment Assets. That means the current economics cannot be reconstructed by taking the old fee table and changing one percentage.

Currentness rule: version both the rate and the denominator. A historical fee table can be directionally wrong even when the provider is unchanged.

The amended agreement also carries material client-side exit economics

The filed amended agreement states that if Eightco terminates the Worldcoin Tower agreement during the defined Term, the company owes liquidated damages equal to 85% of fees and other compensation that would otherwise have accrued through the end of the Term, calculated under the contractual mechanics. The consultant, by contrast, may terminate for any reason at any time.

The agreement also requires the consultant to provide services with respect to at least 80% of the aggregate value of Strategy Assets and requires notice if Eightco engages another consultant providing similar services.

The realized expense is already material

Eightco's June 30, 2026 quarterly filing reports approximately $1.376 million of consulting expense for the second quarter and approximately $2.960 million for the first six months of 2026 under the Worldcoin Tower disclosure. The company's 2025 filing had reported approximately $1.158 million of consulting expense for 2025.

ARK is a separate agreement family — do not merge it into the Worldcoin Tower fee

On May 20, 2026, Eightco separately entered into a Master Services Agreement with ARK Capital Markets. The public 8-K described a 1.00% annual management fee on treasury AUM, while the filed MSA states that treasury asset-management services are to be provided through an RIA affiliate and that management-fee commencement is conditioned on the relevant registration structure.

The same ARK arrangement also disclosed 2.2 million warrants, annual Board-advisor cash compensation of $250,000, a one-time grant of 2.2 million restricted shares, and separate milestone bonuses tied to $1B, $5B and $10B capitalization milestones. The filed MSA also says neither party has a convenience-termination right during the Initial or Renewal Term, apart from non-renewal, breach or mutual agreement, and that vested economic rights survive termination.

Why the two agreement families must stay separate

Worldcoin Tower and ARK are not one blended “manager fee.” They have different parties, scopes, compensation layers, regulatory structures and termination mechanics. A live Eightco review therefore needs an agreement-family map before any aggregate cost or overlap conclusion is attempted.

What this case contributes to a Board-side stress test

Eightco demonstrates four failure modes of simplistic benchmarking: using a superseded fee schedule, ignoring a broadened denominator, overlooking long-duration exit economics, and aggregating separate providers before their scopes and conditions are reconciled.

That makes the case particularly relevant when a Board or finance team is reviewing a fee amendment, overlapping advisers, a new investment-management layer or the cost of changing strategy.

Related research

DAT provider fee normalization →
DAT provider exit economics →
Board / CFO decision review →
Digital asset treasury companies →

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

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