A DAT manager agreement can be decision-critical before there is an executed contract to benchmark.
Public filings now show several forms of the pre-signing currentness problem. A related-party manager can be expected at a transaction closing while final economics remain unknown. An issuer can already hold digital assets while still describing a third-party manager as an intended future engagement. And a detailed post-closing arrangement can disappear entirely when the underlying transaction terminates.
Fortitude / Grayscale: live pre-signing window
| Field | Public record |
|---|---|
| Transaction | HeartSciences / Fortitude business combination; HeartSciences said on September 15, 2026 that the transaction continues to progress and is expected to close in Q4 2026, subject to closing conditions including shareholder approval. |
| Expected provider | Grayscale Investments, Inc., described in the proxy materials as a Fortitude / DCG affiliate and proposed digital-asset holdings manager. |
| Expected role | Asset-management agreement expected to be signed at Closing to help Fortitude manage liquidity, including management of digital assets described in the proxy record. |
| Related-party layer | Grayscale is a DCG affiliate; the proxy describes related-party and conflict considerations around the expected relationship. |
| Final economics | No final public fee / term / exit schedule was located in the reviewed materials. The agreement is described as expected at Closing, not as an already executed current contract. |
| Currentness | PLANNED / EXPECTED AT CLOSING — FINAL AGREEMENT ECONOMICS NOT YET PUBLICLY LOCATED |
The proxy also identifies manager-switching cost, transition risk, due diligence and related-party governance as live considerations. Those are useful pre-signing benchmark fields even before a fee schedule is public.
Primary source: HeartSciences proxy materials →
Current transaction update: HeartSciences, September 15, 2026 →
Scilex: active digital-asset activity, but the planned manager contract is still a separate question
| Field | Public record |
|---|---|
| Issuer | Scilex Holding Company. |
| Stated provider plan | The 2025 Form 10-K says Scilex intends to engage a third-party asset manager to execute day-to-day management of cryptocurrency holdings under oversight of a planned cryptocurrency advisory board. |
| Treasury activity | The June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q reports Bitcoin / digital-asset transactions and holdings activity, including Bitcoin received and purchased in transactions with Biconomy and Datavault. |
| Executed manager agreement | No executed third-party cryptocurrency asset-management agreement was located in the reviewed public filings through the June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q. That is a search result, not proof that no non-public arrangement exists. |
| Currentness | INTENDED THIRD-PARTY MANAGER / ACTIVE DIGITAL-ASSET ACTIVITY — EXECUTED MANAGER AGREEMENT NOT PUBLICLY LOCATED IN REVIEWED FILINGS |
This is different from an expected-at-closing mandate. The treasury can become economically active before the public record closes the provider-selection loop. A benchmark therefore needs separate fields for strategy activity, funded-asset status, provider-selection status and executed contract status.
Primary source: Scilex 2025 Form 10-K — intended third-party asset manager →
Primary source: Scilex June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q — digital-asset activity →
BSTR / Blockstream Capital: planned arrangement that never became the public contract
| Field | Public record |
|---|---|
| Transaction | BSTR Holdings / Cantor Equity Partners I proposed business combination. |
| Expected provider | Blockstream Capital Management, with Blockstream Capital Partners also party to the expected arrangement. |
| Planned process | The S-4 said commercial terms would be agreed after Closing and the related-party arrangement would be subject to audit-committee review and approval before Board approval. |
| Final economics | Not agreed in the reviewed pre-closing filing; the filing expressly said the Asset Management Arrangement had not yet been entered into. |
| Outcome | On August 20, 2026 BSTR and CEPO terminated the business combination. |
| Currentness | PLANNED / NOT EXECUTED IN THE PUBLIC TRANSACTION RECORD — UNDERLYING BUSINESS COMBINATION TERMINATED |
This is a useful false-positive control. A detailed registration statement can describe an expected manager, governance process and transition risk without creating a live executed manager agreement. Once the underlying transaction ended, the planned post-closing arrangement could not be carried forward as a current public-company contract merely because it had appeared repeatedly in the S-4.
Primary source: BSTR S-4 amendment →
Primary source: BSTR transaction termination, August 20, 2026 →
What a pre-signing stress test can freeze
- proposed provider role and actual authority;
- related-party / ownership / Board overlap;
- same-role public fee denominators and payment media;
- initial term, renewal and ordinary / cause exit rights;
- minimum fees, warrants, performance economics and expense allocation;
- custody, staking and manager-transition boundaries;
- which terms are executed, expected, negotiated, still unknown or superseded by transaction events;
- the exact event that should trigger a currentness re-check: selection, signing, closing, amendment, funding, first accrual, termination or transaction abandonment.
Related research
Benchmarking and SEC disclosure evidence →
Compare executed DAT management agreements →
Same provider, different DAT economics →
Related-party DAT agreements →
Currentness methodology →
Public-source factual commercial research only. No legal, fairness, fiduciary, accounting or investment opinion and no recommendation to approve, retain, replace or terminate a provider.