DAT Manager Contract Benchmark

Methodology

The objective is not to produce a single “market fee.” The objective is to build a reproducible factual record showing which public contracts are meaningfully comparable, where they differ, and what happened after execution.

1. Target contract currentness

Version chain first

ORIGINAL → AMENDED / RESTATED → CURRENT → TERMINATED?

We identify the executed agreement family, later amendments or restatements, current effective terms and any disclosed termination. A superseded agreement is not used as the current target.

2. Source hierarchy

  • Primary: executed agreement, amendment, restatement or termination document filed with the SEC.
  • Currentness: latest 8-K, 10-Q, 10-K, proxy or other issuer filing describing present terms.
  • Governance: related-party policy, committee charter, proxy disclosure and ownership / Board relationship facts.
  • Outcome: issuer filings describing renegotiation, internalization, replacement, termination, fee settlement or litigation.
  • Secondary public materials: used only when attributable and clearly labeled as secondary.

3. Peer selection

Candidate peers are screened before deep comparison. Inclusion depends on the economic role of the provider, not just the asset or headline fee.

  • Discretionary asset management is separated from strategic advisory work.
  • Staking, custody, derivatives, treasury execution and capital-markets services are identified separately.
  • Related-party and unrelated-party structures are tagged explicitly.
  • Asset type, AUM scale, payment denominator and fee mechanics are considered.
  • Material non-comparability is disclosed rather than averaged away.

4. Normalization fields

ROLE / SCOPE · AUM / DENOMINATOR · BASE FEE · PERFORMANCE FEE · MINIMUMS · EQUITY / WARRANTS · TERM · RENEWAL · COMPANY TERMINATION · PROVIDER TERMINATION · LIQUIDATED DAMAGES / ACCELERATION · RELATED-PARTY STATUS · AMENDMENTS · REALIZED OUTCOME

5. What the pack can and cannot say

The pack may state that a provision sits above, below or within an observable public range, or that a contract stack differs materially from selected public comparables. It may document that similar structures were later renegotiated, terminated or litigated.

It does not state that a contract is fair, unfair, lawful, unlawful, fiduciary-compliant or arm's-length. Those are conclusions for the client and its legal / financial advisers.

6. QA before delivery

  • Current contract version rechecked.
  • Peer inclusion logic rechecked.
  • Fee formulas and annualized examples recalculated.
  • Material related-party and termination facts reconciled to primary sources.
  • Every material factual claim linked to a source.
  • Unknowns and unavailable information listed explicitly.

Methodology is designed for public-source factual benchmarking and may be adapted to a matter's scope. It is not a legal, fairness, fiduciary, accounting or investment methodology.