Case note · Mango DAT / Cube

Mango DAT / Cube: a layered fee stack, broad discretionary authority and a currentness question.

Mangoceuticals' December 2025 Cube arrangement is useful because a single provider relationship combines platform access, client-controlled wallets, discretionary Solana management, tiered AUC charges, execution-management economics and short renewal periods.

Agreement snapshot

FieldPublicly disclosed term
Effective dateDecember 17, 2025
Client / providerMango DAT, LLC / Cube Operations LLC
RolePlatform and MPC-wallet services plus discretionary asset management over designated Account Assets, initially Solana
AuthorityCube has sole discretionary asset-management authority over Account Assets, including buying, selling, swapping, staking and other trading actions; wallets are disclosed as client-controlled with trade-only access for Cube
AUC fee tiers30 bps for the first tier below $10m; 25 bps for $10m–$50m; 20 bps for $50m–$250m; 10 bps above $250m, calculated on a graduated basis
Execution managementOrder Form states 2% of total assets billed on initial deposit and then quarterly based on 30-day average NAV
Minimum$2,500 monthly minimum
ExpensesReasonable documented account expenses, including service-provider, settlement, tax, structuring and trading/account-management costs
Initial termOne year
RenewalAutomatic consecutive two-month periods unless either party gives at least 30 days' prior notice

The fee architecture is not one percentage

The filed Order Form separates graduated AUC charges from a separate execution-management charge and a monthly minimum. That is exactly the kind of structure that disappears in a simple “management fee” spreadsheet.

A useful benchmark has to identify which charge applies to custody/platform scope, which charge applies to discretionary execution, whether the bases overlap and which expenses remain pass-throughs.

Benchmarking implication: normalize provider scope and fee bases before comparing headline rates. Two contracts can use the same word “management” while charging for materially different layers.

The authority is broad, but custody control is distinct

The Master Services Agreement gives Cube discretionary authority to transact in the Account Assets and appoints it as agent and attorney-in-fact for the management mandate. At the same time, the agreement states that permitted cryptocurrency wallets are controlled by the client and Cube has trade-only access.

This distinction matters because asset-management authority, wallet control, custody and platform services are separate comparison fields.

The exit structure is comparatively short-cycle

The Master Services Agreement has a one-year initial term followed by two-month automatic renewals. Either party can prevent the next renewal with at least 30 days' notice. The agreement also includes material-breach termination after a 30-day cure period and requires the client to remove assets after termination.

That makes Mango / Cube useful as a structural contrast to long-duration arrangements such as Upexi / GSR or AVAX One / Hivemind.

Currentness is the important unresolved field

The December 2025 8-K and filed exhibits establish the contract terms. Mangoceuticals' June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q, filed in August 2026, does not repeat references to Cube, Mango DAT, Solana or the digital-asset treasury program. Absence from that filing does not prove termination, but it also does not establish continued active deployment.

For a live client decision, the correct status is therefore currentness requires confirmation, not “active” by assumption.

Related research

Compare public DAT management agreements →
Digital asset treasury management agreements →
DAT provider fees →
DAT provider exit economics →

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

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