Case note · Pineapple Financial / Canary + Monarq + Innovating Capital

Two 1% manager schedules became a broader three-layer treasury currentness problem.

Pineapple Financial's INJ treasury structure began with separate Canary and Monarq discretionary agreements around one treasury program. By May 2026 the Board and Audit Committee had also approved Innovating Capital Management to provide asset-management, consulting and advisory services under a new Treasury Reserve Policy. The public record therefore needs provider-by-provider currentness rather than a static two-manager fee table.

Original manager-stack snapshot

FieldCanary Capital Asset Management AgreementMonarq Trading Advisory Agreement
Effective dateSeptember 4, 2025September 4, 2025
RoleAsset manager for a defined sleeve of the INJ treasury program; long-only INJ strategy including staking / restaking under the filed guidelinesDiscretionary trading manager; at least 90% of the account allocated to a long-only INJ strategy
Allocation30% of Available Capital under the filed agreementRemaining 70% allocation under the Canary agreement's provider-stack mechanics
Headline fee1.00% per year of Account Assets, calculated and paid quarterly0.25% per quarter, expressly described as a 1.0% annual rate, based on beginning-of-quarter Account Equity
Initial termThree years; successive one-year renewals only by mutual agreementThree years; automatic one-year renewals unless either party gives at least 30 days' non-renewal notice
Early terminationFiled agreement provides cause-based early termination during the termFiled agreement provides early termination for material breach / specified insolvency events

The two 1% rates should not be added together

The filed Canary agreement assigns 30% of Pineapple's Available Capital to Canary and the remaining 70% to Monarq. Each provider has a separate 1% annualized fee architecture, but those percentages apply to different allocated sleeves / account definitions. Treating the stack as a simple 2% treasury fee would therefore misstate the disclosed structure.

Normalization rule: provider fee rate × provider-specific denominator × allocated sleeve. Similar percentages across parallel providers are not automatically cumulative over the same asset base.

Canary adds allocation and withdrawal controls

The Canary agreement goes beyond a fee schedule. It limits ordinary withdrawals to one per calendar quarter and generally to no more than $10,000 of INJ. After the first anniversary, a larger withdrawal for legitimate business purposes requires approval from the independent directors. A withdrawal that would remove more than 50.1% of the total Account value also requires approval from holders of at least 50.1% of the company's voting power.

The agreement also states that Pineapple may not appoint another provider to perform the same or substantially similar services for Canary's 30% allocation without Canary's prior written consent, which the manager may withhold in its sole discretion. That restriction does not apply to capital outside Canary's allocated sleeve.

May 2026 added a new management / advisory layer

On May 31, 2026, Pineapple's Board and Audit Committee approved a Management Services and Advisory Agreement with Innovating Capital Management, LLC. The public 8-K says Innovating Capital was appointed to provide asset-management, consulting and advisory services to Pineapple and its subsidiaries, including the design, implementation and oversight of the digital-asset treasury strategy.

The disclosed agreement has a one-year initial term, automatic successive one-year renewals and a 30-day termination right for either party. The same Board action adopted a Treasury Reserve Policy covering governance, approval, execution, custody, reporting and risk management for the DAT strategy.

The May 31, 2026 10-Q later identifies Innovating Capital as an approved adviser under that Treasury Reserve Policy and says affiliates of Innovating Capital are among the company's related-party treasury-placement counterparties. The 8-K and 10-Q reviewed for this case do not disclose the adviser fee, so no fee is inferred here.

Currentness now needs provider-by-provider evidence

By May 31, 2026 Pineapple reported approximately $49.4 million of recognized digital assets and continued to acquire INJ after quarter-end. The 10-Q specifically identified Monarq Capital as a digital-asset manager, disclosed $250,000 of restricted cash held by Monarq for future INJ purchases, and named Monarq alongside FalconX and BitGo in its counterparty-risk discussion.

That filing does not contain the name Canary Capital. Silence is not evidence of termination. The filed Canary agreement had a three-year initial term and cause-based early termination mechanics, so Canary's status still requires direct confirmation. Innovating Capital is separately identified as an approved adviser under the new Treasury Reserve Policy. The public state is therefore not “Canary was replaced by Innovating” or “three managers are concurrently charging fees.” It is a layered currentness problem with direct later-period evidence for Monarq and Innovating, and unresolved later-period status for Canary.

Currentness rule: a later provider appointment does not prove replacement of an earlier provider. Freeze each agreement family separately: role, allocated assets, fee, termination state and latest operating evidence.

Why this case improves a Board / CFO stress test

A one-line market table would likely record “1%” and miss most of the decision-relevant structure. Pineapple now shows why a provider benchmark should separately store allocation percentage, denominator, billing timing, withdrawal controls, replacement-consent rights, treasury-policy role, related-party status and later-period evidence for each provider in a multi-provider stack.

Decision-record fields this case adds

Provider-specific sleeve allocation · fee denominator · quarterly billing convention · large-withdrawal approval mechanics · replacement-provider consent rights · funded-status evidence · treasury-policy adviser status · fee-disclosure gaps · provider-by-provider currentness.

Related research

DAT provider fees →
DAT management agreements →
Digital asset treasury companies →
Public provider universe →

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

Request a 72-hour stress test