Compare digital asset treasury management agreements without flattening unlike contracts into one fee table.

1. Duration can dominate the fee rate

A lower recurring percentage can still represent a materially different commitment if the mandate is ten or twenty years rather than one to three years. The economic question is not just “what is the annual rate?” but “what is the expected and avoidable total relationship exposure?”

2. Exit conditions matter even when the initial term is short

AlphaTON / Alpha Sigma has a one-year initial term, but the company-side termination right disclosed in the 2026 annual report is tied to a decision to end the TON treasury strategy. A short term therefore does not automatically mean unrestricted replacement flexibility. At the other extreme, Axe / DNA shows that a ten-year contract can disclose a client cause-based exit while giving the manager a later ordinary no-cause exit, making party-specific termination rights a separate benchmark field.

3. The word “management” does not define a comparable role

Forward, SUI Group, Lite Strategy, SkyAI, Axe, AlphaTON, AVAX One and Enlivex disclose manager or manager-like digital-asset mandates with different control frameworks. SkyAI's Sol Edge contract is labelled consulting but grants functional authority to make allocations, direct trades and staking activity and select intermediaries. Mango / Cube combines infrastructure, wallet services and discretionary management in one stack. Role normalization must precede price comparison.

4. Payment medium and incentive structure belong in the benchmark

Lite Strategy's 1.75% fee is paid in common shares or pre-funded warrants under the agreement mechanics and sits beside separate GSR warrants. A recurring rate that looks identical to another public mandate can therefore create a different cash-versus-dilution profile. SkyAI adds a separate payment-medium control because its current tiered fee may be paid in USDC, USDT, SOL or a combination. Axe adds another problem: a 1.00% asset fee sits beside a 25% incentive fee above 7% and separate adviser warrants.

5. Exit structure can invert the apparent fee ranking

Enlivex's 2% rate sits inside a three-year agreement with a no-cause exit path beginning after the first anniversary. Upexi's lower 1.75% rate was embedded in a 20-year structure with restrictive company-side exit mechanics. Lite Strategy also charges 1.75%, but inside a ten-year exclusive structure where ordinary company exit is tied to ending the LTC strategy and triggers a remaining-term formula. SkyAI's current tiered schedule also sits inside a 20-year contract where a company termination during the Term carries all-remaining-fee liquidated-damages language. Axe's 1% headline rate sits in a ten-year agreement without a disclosed ordinary client no-cause path.

6. Currentness is a separate diligence field

SUI Group shows why provider layers must be followed separately: Galaxy's discretionary manager mandate and Karatage's strategic-adviser agreement have different fees, terms, warrants and control rights even though both reference the treasury AUM. Lite Strategy shows the same-manager / different-client problem: GSR's terms there are materially different from Upexi / GSR. SkyAI shows a provider remaining in place while the fee architecture changes. Axe adds a disclosure-gap control: March 2026 affirmatively repeated DNA's manager terms, while the June filing continued treasury activity without repeating DNA or the agreement. AlphaTON shows how one agreement family can terminate while another manager remains disclosed. Mango / Cube shows why later silence should be treated as an unresolved currentness question rather than guessed status.

One target agreement family, currentness reconstruction, up to 5–7 defensible verified public comparables (or an explicit finding that fewer clean same-role peers exist), fee / exit normalization, relevant realized outcomes, source ledger and one revision.