Solmate: a 10-year SOL-AUM adviser agreement approaches its first annual fee-measurement window while a separate $250k/month Pulsar agreement moved from fee pause to termination.

Brera Holdings PLC, operating publicly as Solmate Infrastructure, provides a useful agreement-family currentness case. Its September 2025 strategic-adviser contract combines annual SOL-AUM compensation with multiple warrant layers and a ten-year term. A separate 2026 Pulsar Group agreement charged $250,000 per month, had payment and accrual suspended in April, and was then mutually terminated effective July 29, 2026 without further cost or obligation.

The first annual SOL-AUM measurement date has a filing-date conflict

The filed Strategic Advisor Agreement defines its Effective Date as the Closing Date under Securities Purchase Agreements dated September 18, 2025. The same filing package labels the agreement dated September 23, 2025, and the issuer disclosed that the PIPE closed September 23, 2025. Later issuer summaries sometimes describe September 18 as the agreement's effective date. Because the contract's operative definition ties effectiveness to Closing Date, the first anniversary should not be presented as a certain September 18 event without reconciling those disclosures.

The annual Advisory Share is calculated on the anniversary date of the Effective Date using the agreement's SOL-AUM valuation mechanics. On the contract text plus the closing disclosure, September 23, 2026 is the stronger contractual candidate. But a later primary record showing the actual accrual, invoice or payment should be used to confirm realized treatment before dollarizing the fee.

Recent issuer materials have reported continued SOL holdings, but a current holdings snapshot is not the contractual anniversary measurement. The exact fee also depends on the agreement's AUM definition and valuation mechanics, plus any amendment, waiver or adviser-level termination that may affect the calculation.

The warrant package is economically separate from the annual cash fee

The filed agreement grants three warrant families in addition to the annual SOL-AUM advisory share. The pre-funded warrants are described as fully earned at the Effective Date and not subject to revocation or clawback if the company later terminates an adviser. Performance-based common warrants become fully earned when the applicable performance metric is achieved and likewise are not subject to revocation or clawback after they are earned.

This makes Solmate a useful noncash-compensation control: the economic record must separate recurring AUM-linked cash compensation from already-earned or performance-earned equity rights that can survive a later change in the advisory relationship.

The adviser relationship later overlapped with governance and management

At execution, the strategic advisers were not directors. Later issuer disclosures state that four strategic advisers joined the Board, and 2026 disclosures also state that two of the advisers subsequently became Interim Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer. These are relationship and governance facts; they do not by themselves establish whether the original economics were fair or unfair.

Pulsar shows why provider state must be updated as a sequence, not frozen at one filing

The separate Pulsar Group agreement covered exclusive advisory support for business development and blockchain / technology operations across the Gulf Cooperation Council region. The fee was $250,000 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2026. On April 24, 2026, the parties suspended both payment and accrual of that monthly fee until further notice while leaving the rest of the agreement in force.

That April disclosure supported ACTIVE — FEE PAUSED at that point in time. But the state changed again. An August 4 Form 6-K says the parties executed a termination notice on July 29 and mutually terminated the Advisory Agreement effective that day, without further cost or obligation to each other. The current state is therefore TERMINATED — NO FURTHER COST / OBLIGATION DISCLOSED, not an active paused-fee agreement.

The strategic-adviser contract remains a separate currentness question

The July termination filing concerns the Pulsar Advisory Services Agreement, not the separate September 2025 Strategic Advisor Agreement. Later public records continued to reference the Strategic Advisor Agreement and its securities-related rights. The two agreement families therefore must not be collapsed into a single provider status.

This is exactly why a DAT provider map should store status by contract family: one related-party advisory layer can terminate while another adviser agreement remains relevant to current compensation and governance analysis.

Related research

DAT provider fee normalization →
Related-party DAT agreements →
Digital asset treasury companies →
Board / CFO decision review →