The 2-and-20 model is obsolete for on-chain funds. Its opacity and misaligned incentives are incompatible with blockchain's inherent auditability. Investors now demand fee structures that are programmatically enforced and visible on-chain.
real-estate-tokenization-hype-vs-reality
Blog
The Future of Fund Fees: Transparent, Performance-Linked, and Automated
Management and performance fees are being codified into smart contracts, enabling automatic calculation and immutable distribution. This is the technical blueprint for transparent fund economics, especially in real estate tokenization.
introduction
THE FEE REVOLUTION
Introduction
Traditional fund management fees are being replaced by transparent, on-chain models that directly link compensation to verifiable performance.
Performance-linked fees create perfect alignment. Protocols like Pendle Finance and Solv Protocol demonstrate that yield can be tokenized and fees automated. This shifts the manager's incentive from asset gathering to pure alpha generation.
Automation eliminates trust assumptions. Smart contracts on Ethereum or Solana autonomously calculate, deduct, and distribute fees based on pre-defined, immutable logic. This creates a verifiable audit trail superior to any quarterly report.
Evidence: Pendle's TVL exceeds $1B, proving market demand for structured, transparent yield products where fees are a function of the value delivered, not assets under management.
thesis-statement
THE PIVOT
Thesis Statement
Traditional fund fee models are being replaced by transparent, performance-linked, and automated structures enabled by on-chain data and smart contracts.
Transparency is non-negotiable. On-chain data from protocols like EigenLayer and Lido provides verifiable, real-time proof of fund activity, eliminating the audit lag and opacity of traditional finance.
Performance-linked fees dominate. The 2-and-20 model is obsolete. Carry-only and high-water mark structures, automated via smart contracts, align manager incentives directly with investor returns.
Automation replaces intermediaries. Smart contracts on networks like Arbitrum or Solana execute fee calculations, distributions, and investor redemptions, slashing operational overhead and enabling new fund structures.
Evidence: On-chain fund protocols like Syndicate and Alkimiya demonstrate that automated, performance-fee vaults attract capital by offering superior fee efficiency and verifiable execution.
market-context
THE FEE PARADOX
Market Context: The Tokenization Bottleneck
Traditional fund fee structures are incompatible with on-chain transparency and composability, creating a primary friction point for institutional asset tokenization.
Opaque fee models break on transparent ledgers. Traditional management and performance fees rely on private calculations and manual invoicing, processes that are antithetical to public blockchain verification and automated execution.
Tokenized funds require programmability. Fees must be encoded as smart contract logic, enabling real-time accrual, automatic distribution to GP/LP wallets, and verifiable audit trails. This eliminates administrative overhead and disputes.
Performance fees demand oracle integration. Calculating profits for a waterfall distribution requires reliable, tamper-proof price feeds from oracles like Chainlink or Pyth. This creates a new technical dependency for fund architects.
Composability unlocks novel structures. Automated, transparent fees enable integration with DeFi primitives. Fees can be automatically staked in Aave or Compound, or used to purchase protocol treasury assets, creating embedded yield mechanisms.
key-trends
FROM OPAQUE OVERHEAD TO COMPETITIVE PRODUCT
Key Trends: The Three Pillars of On-Chain Fees
The $100B+ asset management industry is being rebuilt on-chain, replacing legacy fee structures with transparent, programmable, and performance-aligned models.
01
The Problem: Opaque 2-and-20
Traditional fund fees are a black box of management fees and performance cuts, with no real-time accountability for capital allocation or results.\n- Zero transparency on fee calculations or underlying costs.\n- Misaligned incentives where managers profit regardless of fund performance.\n- Manual, quarterly reporting creates massive information asymmetry.
2% + 20%
Legacy Model
>30 Days
Reporting Lag
02
The Solution: On-Chain Performance Fee Vaults
Protocols like Goldfinch and Maple Finance pioneer transparent, automated fee structures where manager compensation is directly tied to verifiable on-chain performance.\n- Fees are smart contracts with clear logic (e.g., fees only above a high-water mark).\n- Real-time auditability of all transactions and fee accruals.\n- Automated, trustless payouts to stakeholders via Sablier or Superfluid streams.
100%
On-Chain
Real-Time
Audit
03
The Mechanism: Programmable Fee Logic
Smart contracts enable complex, conditional fee models impossible in TradFi, turning fees into a competitive feature.\n- Tiered performance fees (e.g., 10% for returns <15%, 20% above).\n- Time-locked vesting for manager fees to ensure long-term alignment.\n- Dynamic fee switches controlled by governance (see Uniswap, Lido).
Custom
Logic
DAO-Governed
Parameters
04
The Frontier: Intents & Solver Networks
The next evolution abstracts fee execution entirely. Users state a desired outcome (intent), and a competitive solver network (UniswapX, CowSwap, Across) optimizes for best execution, baking fees into the improved result.\n- Fee becomes the optimization target, not a fixed cost.\n- Users pay for outcome, not for the transaction.\n- Solver competition drives fees toward marginal cost.
Intent-Based
Pricing
~500ms
Auction
05
The Metric: Fee-Performance Ratio
On-chain data enables a new fundamental metric: the transparent, real-time ratio of fees extracted to value generated.\n- Quantifiable alpha capture by the manager vs. passive benchmark.\n- Comparable analysis across all on-chain funds and vaults.\n- Drives competition on efficiency, not marketing.
New KPI
For VCs
On-Chain
Benchmarking
06
The Endgame: Frictionless, Automated Treasury Management
DAO treasuries and corporate balance sheets will deploy capital via on-chain vaults with programmable fee rules, automating asset allocation.\n- Set-and-forget strategies with defined fee caps and performance hurdles.\n- Composable yield stacks where fees are netted across multiple protocols.\n- Eliminates fund administration and manual reporting overhead.
DAO Treasuries
Primary User
24/7/365
Management
THE CAPITAL ALLOCATION REVOLUTION
Fee Architecture: Legacy vs. On-Chain
A comparison of traditional fund fee models against emerging on-chain structures enabled by DeFi primitives and smart contracts.
| Feature / Metric | Legacy Hedge Fund (2 & 20) | On-Chain Performance Pool | Fully Automated Vault (e.g., Yearn) |
|---|---|---|---|
Management Fee | 1-2% of AUM, annually | 0% | 0.1-0.5% of AUM, annually |
Performance Fee | 20% of profits, annual hurdle | 10-30% of profits, per-epoch | 10-20% of yield, auto-compounded |
Fee Transparency | |||
Fee Payment Automation | |||
Capital Lock-up Period | 30-90 day notice | 1-7 day epoch | Instant (no lock-up) |
Performance Attribution | Opaque, quarterly reports | Fully on-chain, verifiable | Fully on-chain, verifiable |
Fee Recipient | GP entity | Smart contract & strategist | Smart contract, strategist, treasury |
Real-time NAV Calculation |
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MECHANISM
Deep Dive: Building the Fee Engine
The next generation of fund fees will be transparent, performance-linked, and automated through smart contracts.
Transparency is non-negotiable. Traditional fund structures obscure fee calculations and profit splits. On-chain funds require public, auditable fee logic that stakeholders can verify in real-time, eliminating principal-agent conflicts.
Performance-linked fees dominate. The 2-and-20 model is obsolete. Dynamic fee curves tied to on-chain benchmarks (e.g., outperforming a Uniswap V3 LP pool) align manager and investor incentives directly.
Automation via smart contracts removes friction. Fees are calculated and distributed programmatically by the protocol's fee engine, not a manual back-office process. This enables real-time performance fees and instant investor withdrawals.
Evidence: Look at Index Coop's streaming fees or Maple Finance's performance-based rewards. These models prove automated, transparent fee distribution is operationally viable and demanded by the market.
risk-analysis
THE DOWNSIDE OF AUTOMATION
Risk Analysis: What Could Go Wrong?
Automating and tokenizing fund fees introduces novel attack vectors and systemic risks that must be modeled.
01
Oracle Manipulation Cripples Performance Fees
On-chain performance fees rely on price oracles like Chainlink or Pyth. A manipulated NAV feed can trigger false fee payouts or block legitimate ones, directly siphoning value from LPs.
- Attack Vector: Flash loan to skew TWAP or exploit low-liquidity reserve assets.
- Systemic Impact: Erodes trust in the fundamental fee model, causing mass redemptions.
- Mitigation: Requires multi-oracle fallback systems and time-locked fee settlements.
>5%
NAV Skew
Minutes
Attack Window
02
Governance Tokenomics Become the Fund's Liability
Linking fee discounts or rewards to a protocol's native token (e.g., GMX's esGMX, dYdX's DYDX) creates reflexive risk. A token price collapse can trigger a death spiral.
- Vicious Cycle: Lower token price → reduced incentive alignment → user exit → lower fees/protocol revenue → further price drop.
- Regulatory Flag: Could transform the token into an unregistered security, inviting SEC action.
- Solution: Fee structures must be sustainable without perpetual token emissions.
-90%+
Token Crash Risk
High
Regulatory Scrutiny
03
Automated Fee Logic Has Unforeseen Edge Cases
Smart contracts for dynamic fee curves or automated rebalancing are brittle. A logic error, even in audited code, can lock funds or apply incorrect fees at scale.
- Example Bug: A miscalculation in a Curve-v2 style fee algorithm could overcharge during low-volatility periods.
- Upgrade Risk: Admin keys or DAO governance for fixes become centralization points and targets.
- Requirement: Formal verification and circuit-breaker mechanisms are non-negotiable.
$100M+
Potential Lockup
Inevitable
Code Bug
04
Cross-Chain Fee Aggregation Fragments Security
Funds using LayerZero or Axelar to aggregate fees from multiple chains concentrate value in bridge smart contracts. A bridge hack becomes a direct loss of accrued protocol revenue.
- Single Point of Failure: The bridge's verification layer (e.g., relayers, light clients) is now mission-critical for treasury management.
- Complexity Penalty: Increases attack surface and makes risk assessment opaque for LPs.
- Mitigation: Requires institutional-grade, insured bridging solutions like Wormhole.
$2B+
Bridge Hack Precedent
High
Surface Area
05
The Regulatory Arbitrage Trap
Automated, global fee structures will attract scrutiny from multiple jurisdictions (SEC, MiCA, etc.). A fund may comply in one region but be deemed non-compliant in another, forcing costly restructuring or shutdown.
- Enforcement Risk: Howey Test application to automated profit-sharing models is uncertain but likely.
- Operational Drag: Legal overhead can erase efficiency gains from automation.
- Reality Check: True decentralization is the only defense, but rarely achieved by active funds.
Multiple
Agencies Involved
High
Compliance Cost
06
Liquidity Black Holes During Market Stress
Performance fee tokens (e.g., rights to future fee streams) sold on secondary markets like Uniswap can implode during drawdowns. This creates reflexive selling pressure on the fund's own assets if it holds its tokens.
- Reflexivity: Token sell-off → perceived fund weakness → LP redemptions → forced asset sales.
- TVL Correlation: Creates a dangerous link between speculative token markets and fund stability.
- Design Imperative: Fee token mechanics must be anti-fragile, not pro-cyclical.
-50% TVL
Drawdown Amplifier
High
Correlation Risk
future-outlook
THE FEE STRUCTURE REVOLUTION
Future Outlook: The 24-Month Horizon
Fund management fees will shift from opaque, fixed rates to transparent, performance-linked models enforced by smart contracts.
Performance-Linked Fees Dominate. The 2% management fee is obsolete. The new standard is a zero-base fee plus performance fee model, where managers earn only if they outperform a verifiable on-chain benchmark like an ETH staking yield or a DeFi index. This aligns incentives and eliminates rent-seeking.
Automated Fee Distribution via Smart Contracts. Fee logic moves from legal documents to immutable code. Platforms like Enzyme Finance and Melon Protocol will standardize fee-triggering events and automated payouts, removing administrative overhead and custody risk for investors.
Transparency Becomes Non-Negotiable. Investors demand real-time, on-chain visibility into fee accrual and performance calculations. This transparency is enforced by public ledgers and oracles like Chainlink, making hidden fees and creative accounting impossible.
Evidence: The Rise of DeFi Vaults. Yearn Finance and similar vaults have normalized the concept of automated, performance-based fee collection. Their widespread adoption proves the market prefers this model, setting the template for all future fund structures.
takeaways
THE FEE REVOLUTION
Key Takeaways for Builders
The opaque 2-and-20 model is dead on-chain. Here's how to build the new standard.
01
The Problem: Opaque Fees Kill Trust
Traditional fund fees are black boxes, creating misaligned incentives and eroding LP confidence. On-chain, this is a non-starter.
- Transparency is non-negotiable: Every basis point must be auditable in real-time.
- Align or die: Fees must demonstrably correlate with value creation, not just AUM growth.
100%
On-Chain
-99%
Opaqueness
02
The Solution: Programmable Performance Fees
Encode fee logic directly into smart contracts, creating a verifiable, high-water-mark system.
- Dynamic rates: Fees activate only after surpassing a benchmark (e.g., outperforming ETH staking yield).
- Automated execution: Use Chainlink oracles for benchmark data and Gelato for fee claim automation, eliminating manual processes.
>0%
Only on Alpha
~0
Manual Overhead
03
The Architecture: Fee Streaming & Composable Value
Move from lump-sum withdrawals to continuous, programmable fee streams that become yield-bearing assets.
- Streaming fees: Use Superfluid or Sablier to drip fees to managers, improving cash flow predictability.
- Composability: Tokenized fee streams can be used as collateral in Aave or sold as NFTs, creating a secondary market for manager performance.
24/7
Cash Flow
New Asset
Class Created
04
The Benchmark: On-Chain Indices as the New Hurdle
Forget the S&P 500. The relevant benchmark is now a basket of on-chain yields and strategies.
- Hurdle Rate = DeFi Baseline: Set performance fees against a composite of Lido stETH yield, Aave supply APY, and GMX GLP returns.
- Real-time verification: Oracles provide continuous, tamper-proof benchmark data, making fee calculations objective and dispute-free.
On-Chain
Benchmark
Real-Time
Verification
05
The UX: LP-Controlled Fee Parameters
Democratize governance by letting LPs vote on key fee parameters via ERC-20 voting or NFT-based governance.
- Adjustable sliders: LPs can collectively vote on performance fee percentages, hurdle rates, and vesting schedules.
- Exit rights: Implement a rage quit mechanism, allowing dissenting LPs to withdraw proportionally if fee changes are enacted.
LP
Governed
Flexible
Parameters
06
The Endgame: Autonomous Fund Entities
The logical conclusion is a fund managed entirely by smart contracts with fees funding its own R&D.
- DAO-managed strategies: Fee revenue funds protocol development and strategy research via a DAO treasury.
- Recursive growth: Performance fees compound directly back into the fund's TVL, creating a flywheel aligned with all stakeholders.
Fully
Autonomous
Flywheel
Growth
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall