Public sample · current through Sep. 17, 2026

Stress-test role, denominator, currentness and exit — not just the headline fee.

This abbreviated sample shows the form of a 72-hour DAT Provider Economics Stress Test. It uses public sources only. A client pack adds current-version verification, up to 5–7 defensible verified peers, calculation notes, explicit unknowns, non-comparability controls and a source ledger; if fewer clean same-role peers exist, that limitation is reported rather than padded.

Illustrative decision table

Control	Current / disclosed economics	Term / exit state	What the benchmark must preserve
CEA Industries / 10X Capital Current case note →	The latest Sep. 11 filing describes the live AMA at 1.4% of DAT-strategy assets, with $1.1M of quarterly management expense and $1.4M of accrued unpaid fees at July 31. The earlier March Board benchmarking disclosure had referenced 1.75%.	20-year agreement through 2045. CEA says invoiced management fees have not been paid since Apr. 10 while accrual continues; litigation remains pending.	Historical fee ≠ current fee. Original economics, Board benchmark, current rate, unpaid accruals, termination exposure and litigation status need one versioned record.
Hivemind: AVAX One vs Upexi Cross-client control →	Both disclose a 1.25% annual headline rate. AVAX One pays against Account Size for discretionary management. Upexi pays 0.3125% quarterly against issuer market capitalization for non-discretionary advice, settled in shares subject to a 9.99% ownership cap and cash substitution.	AVAX One: 10-year initial manager term with cause-based company exit. Upexi: 3-year adviser term, no general company no-cause right in the filed Section 2, plus cash-takeout remainder-of-term mechanics.	Same provider + same percentage ≠ same comparable. Role, denominator, payment medium, duration and exit mechanics change the economics.
GSR: Lite Strategy vs former Upexi mandate Cross-client control →	Both disclose a 1.75% asset-based headline rate. Lite Strategy settles the recurring fee in shares / pre-funded warrants and also granted separate GSR warrants. Upexi's former GSR mandate used monthly advance AUM fees plus separate warrants.	Lite Strategy: 10-year exclusive LTC term with a present-value remaining-term formula for the disclosed ordinary company exit. Former Upexi / GSR: 20-year schedule, replacement restrictions and a different non-cause fee formula before GSR terminated and arbitration followed.	Same AUM rate can still produce different lock-in and dilution. Fee medium, separate equity, exclusivity, replacement restrictions and realized outcome must remain separate fields.
Solana Company / Pantera Currentness case →	The Trading Advisory Agreement discloses a tiered annual AUM fee: 1.00% at $1B or less, 0.75% above $1B through $5B and 0.50% above $5B. The June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q later disclosed approximately $0.5M of trading-advisory fees for the quarter and $1.1M for the six-month period.	10-year initial trading-advisory term with successive one-year renewals subject to mutual agreement. A separate strategic-adviser agreement carries its own equity-linked economics.	Original fee schedule ≠ currentness proof. Later fee recognition should be linked back to the same agreement family, while separate adviser warrants stay outside the trading-manager fee line.
Forum Markets / Electric Treasury Edge Realized exit case →	2% annual fee on average daily NAV plus a $2M annual minimum.	Five-year term with an 85% remaining-compensation formula for specified early company termination. The parties later mutually terminated; Forum paid $1.5M in June 2026 for outstanding fees/expenses plus an agreed portion of liquidated damages.	Contractual exit exposure ≠ realized settlement. The original formula and what the parties actually paid belong in different fields.

Illustrative finding

A market-rate answer can be wrong even when every percentage in the table is copied correctly. The decision-relevant record is the combined stack: provider role, fee denominator, payment medium, equity / warrant consideration, contract duration, ordinary exit path, remaining-term economics, current accrued / paid status and what happened when comparable relationships changed or ended.

What the 72-hour stress test adds

Current-version verification: executed agreement, amendments, latest filing and termination state before comparison.
Role normalization: discretionary manager, strategic adviser, staking provider and services layer are not averaged into one false peer rate.
Fee normalization: denominator, measurement date, minimums, performance mechanics and cash versus equity settlement.
Exit reconstruction: company/provider rights, notice, voting or performance gates, remaining-term formulas and realized settlement.
Currentness controls: effective fee schedule versus later accrual / invoice / payment / recognized expense; active, paused, waived, unpaid, expired and terminated remain distinct states.
Outcome controls: fee resets, internalization, non-renewal, settlements, disputes and provider replacement structures.

Primary public sources behind this sample

No conclusion is expressed here about fairness, legality, fiduciary compliance, accounting treatment, arm's-length status or whether any provider should be selected, retained or terminated. Public sample for factual methodology demonstration only.

See the actual memo format See the provider-side $4,900 / 72-hour scope Open the cross-client comparison