Benchmark the contract stack, not just the fee.
This sample shows the form of analysis. It uses only public materials and is intentionally abbreviated. A client pack would include a current-version ledger, a larger verified peer set, source-by-source citations, calculation notes, non-comparability notes and explicit unknowns.
Illustrative comparison
| Arrangement | Headline economics | Scope | Term / exit | Governance / outcome signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SkyAI / Sol Edge | 2% recurring management fee below $1B AUM | Digital-asset treasury management / related services | 20-year term; company-side early termination can trigger payment tied to remaining future fees | Related-party relationship; separate Sol Markets warrant package disclosed at $101.3M fair value; activist scrutiny of pricing / process |
| Upexi / GSR | 1.75% recurring management fee | Discretionary digital-asset management including staking | 20-year term; separate contractual termination economics | Useful example that a long term and high headline fee are not unique by themselves |
| CEA Industries / 10X Capital | 1.75% fee in original structure | Digital-asset treasury management | 20-year structure with significant company-side exit economics | Board later proposed 0.50% + up to 0.25% performance, two-year term and revised termination terms; dispute later moved into litigation |
Illustrative finding
A 2% fee, standing alone, is not enough to establish an outlier. Public DAT arrangements include fee levels and long terms in a similar broad range. The more decision-relevant comparison may be the combined stack: scope, related-party status, term, unilateral exit rights, acceleration / liquidated damages, equity consideration and observed outcomes in similar structures.
Why that matters
A benchmark that only says “peer median fee = X%” can create false confidence. A decision-maker may need to know that an apparently ordinary fee sits inside a contract with materially different lock-in or conflict economics — or, conversely, that an activist narrative about the fee is not supported by public comparables.
Primary public sources used in this sample
No conclusion is expressed here about fairness, legality, fiduciary compliance or arm's-length status. Public sample for methodology demonstration only.
Request a 48-hour benchmark