FG Nexus / Galaxy: fee-floor reset → full treasury exit → contract-currentness question.
FG Nexus provides a useful control for a different lifecycle problem: a discretionary ETH management agreement remained part of the public record while the issuer later sold all digital assets and exited the digital-asset business. The economic mandate and the operating strategy therefore have to be versioned separately.
Original manager economics
FG Nexus entered into an Asset Management Agreement with Galaxy Digital Capital Management in July 2025. Galaxy was appointed to provide discretionary management over designated account assets under a long-only ETH strategy that could include staking, restaking and liquid staking.
| Field | Publicly disclosed term |
|---|---|
| Provider | Galaxy Digital Capital Management LP |
| Role | Discretionary management of designated account assets under a long-only ETH strategy |
| Recurring fee | Tiered asset-based fee ranging from 0.75% to 1.25% per year |
| Original minimum | $83,333.33 per month, equivalent to $1.0 million per year |
| Initial term | Three years from July 2025 |
| Ordinary company exit | After the three-year point, 90 days' written notice |
| Cause termination | Either party could terminate for Cause under the filed mechanics |
The fee floor changed while the provider relationship remained
Later public filings say FG Nexus and Galaxy suspended or eliminated the contractual minimum fee beginning December 1, 2025 and intended to revisit the minimum based on the scale of digital assets and services. The tiered asset-based fee remained part of the disclosed structure.
Then the issuer exited the entire digital-asset business
In June 2026, FG Nexus' Board authorized management to exit the digital-asset business and reallocate capital toward real estate. The company reported that it completed the sale of all previously held digital assets before June 30, 2026 and no longer held cryptocurrency assets at quarter-end. Its digital-assets business was presented as discontinued operations in the June 2026 Form 10-Q.
The same filing states that the company had used a third-party asset manager to manage and stake ETH and that asset-management and other fees were recorded as operating expenses. It also disclosed liabilities associated with exiting the digital-asset business.
But strategy exit is not the same thing as a disclosed contract termination
The June 2026 quarterly filing does not name Galaxy in its discontinued-operations discussion and does not expressly state that the Galaxy Asset Management Agreement had been terminated. Because the company had sold all digital assets, the mandate no longer had the same funded operating base, but a decision-grade record should not infer contractual termination from zero crypto holdings alone.
Why this matters for a provider stress test
FG Nexus / Galaxy adds a useful lifecycle scenario to the public comparison set: manager agreement → fee-floor reset → strategy reversal → asset liquidation → discontinued operations → unresolved public contract currentness. That is materially different from a clean mutual termination such as SharpLink or a negotiated damages settlement such as Forum Markets.
Primary public sources
2025 Form 10-Q — Galaxy agreement economics and original minimum fee
2025 Form 10-K filed 2026 — minimum-fee currentness
July 1, 2026 Form 8-K — Board decision to exit digital assets
June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q — asset sale and discontinued operations
Related research
Compare DAT management agreements →
DAT provider fees →
DAT provider exit economics →
Observed provider outcomes →
Public-source factual commercial research only. No legal interpretation of contract enforceability, no fairness or fiduciary conclusion, no accounting or investment opinion, and no recommendation concerning any provider.