Skip to content
Back to skills

Scenario 21

ASecurity

Draft a successor fund LPA for a digital asset fund by adapting a prior-fund precedent to address updated valuation conventions for illiquid tokens, a discount for lack of marketability schedule, staking income treatment, and closing mechanics including a first-close minimum and a final-close deadline.

  • 57 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added September 11, 2026
businessgoexpressgitapi

Works with

  • cli
  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 11, 2026

npx -y skills add sunyifeisb-art/legalwork --skill scenario-21 --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Scenario 21?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Scenario 21
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/sunyifeisb-art-scenario-21/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sunyifeisb-art-scenario-21)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: draft-lpa-scenario-21
task_id: funds-asset-management/draft-lpa/scenario-21
description: Draft a successor fund LPA for a digital asset fund by adapting a prior-fund precedent to address updated valuation conventions for illiquid tokens, a discount for lack of marketability schedule, staking income treatment, and closing mechanics including a first-close minimum and a final-close deadline.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft Digital Asset Fund LPA — Valuation, Staking, and Closing Mechanics

## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable)

- Treat the prior fund LPA as the drafting base, the term sheet as the deal delta source, and all attached exhibits, schedules, and ancillary documents as operative inputs.
- Draft the successor fund agreement as a full, standalone LPA; do not produce a summary or annotated outline in place of operative language.
- If the source set contains multiple competing formulations, preserve the deal-specific business terms in the body and isolate unresolved points in the drafting notes.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Drafter applies a single valuation methodology to all digital assets without separating liquid tokens from illiquid tokens, pre-token instruments, or equity interests in token-issuing entities.
- Drafter omits the transition logic between any initial cost-based treatment and later fair value measurement for illiquid holdings.
- Drafter includes a marketability discount concept but leaves the duration-linked schedule vague or disconnected from the remaining restriction period.
- Drafter fails to address staking income timing, valuation on receipt, subsequent appreciation, and slashing risk allocation.
- Drafter does not separately address airdrops and hard forks, creating ambiguity in tax and accounting treatment.
- Drafter leaves governance voting policy open-ended or fails to tie policy adoption to the required timing in the source materials.
- Drafter reuses old closing mechanics without adding a first-close minimum, a final-close deadline, or any extension mechanic if contemplated.
- Drafter omits custody controls appropriate for digital assets, including multi-signature transaction approval and qualified custodian framing.
- Drafting notes do not surface unresolved business points, leaving the client without a decision list.
- The drafting package is incomplete if the operative LPA file is not drafted first and confirmed non-empty before any secondary note file is finalized.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Use conventional fund LPA architecture: defined terms, management and investment authority, capital commitments and closings, investment limitations, valuation, allocations and distributions, fees and expenses, transfer restrictions, liquidity, custody, conflicts, tax, reporting, and miscellaneous provisions.
- For digital assets, distinguish liquid tokens priced by observable market quotations from illiquid tokens and pre-token instruments valued by GP determination under a fair value standard.
- If the source materials specify an initial cost period for illiquid instruments, preserve it and state the trigger for the transition to fair value; if not, leave the transition point as an open drafting issue.
- For a discount for lack of marketability, the schedule should connect discount levels to the remaining lock-up or transfer restriction period and should decrease as liquidity approaches.
- For staking, state the receipt date for income recognition, the fair value measurement method at receipt, the treatment of subsequent changes in value, and who bears slashing losses.
- For airdrops and hard forks, define each separately and state the income recognition and fair value treatment for each.
- For governance rights, state how token voting decisions are made and how conflicts are handled, with any required policy-adoption deadline carried through from the source materials.
- For closings, state the minimum first-close condition, the consequence if unmet, the final close cut-off, and any permitted extension or waiver mechanics if the source set supports them.
- For custody, align the provisions with a qualified custodian concept and multi-signature approval requirements for transfers and other dispositions.
- Cite controlling authority where a legal proposition is stated, including the source documents’ cited authorities or generally recognized fund and digital-asset practice authorities where no source citation is supplied.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Start from the precedent and replace only the deal-delta terms first; then normalize definitions, cross-references, and exhibit references across the draft.
- Draft valuation provisions by asset category:
  - liquid tokens;
  - illiquid tokens;
  - pre-token instruments;
  - equity interests in token-issuing entities.
- For each category, state:
  - valuation standard;
  - pricing source or decision-maker;
  - timing of measurement;
  - any initial cost treatment;
  - any transition to fair value;
  - any special adjustment or restriction-based discount.
- If the source set does not supply a DLOM schedule, leave bracketed or NTD placeholders for each unresolved discount tier and tie each one to a remaining restriction interval.
- Draft staking provisions in four parts:
  - when staking income is recognized;
  - how receipt is valued;
  - how later fluctuations are treated;
  - how slashing losses affect the fund and capital accounts.
- Draft separate definitions and operative treatment for:
  - airdrop;
  - hard fork;
  - staking reward;
  - slashing event;
  - lock-up or transfer restriction, if needed for the valuation mechanics.
- Draft governance language so that voting authority, consultation rights, and conflict management are internally consistent with the adviser and GP governance framework elsewhere in the LPA.
- Draft closing mechanics so the first-close minimum is stated as a condition to commence investment activity if that is the intended business deal, and the final-close deadline is stated as a hard stop unless extension language is expressly included.
- Draft custody language so it works with transfer mechanics, wallet control, recordkeeping, and any approval threshold needed for digital asset transfers.
- Prepare drafting notes that identify each unresolved point, explain why it remains open, and distinguish true open issues from ministerial clean-up items.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)

- Use vertical consistency between the definitions article, investment restrictions, valuation article, and transfer/custody provisions so that one section does not undercut another.
- Ensure temporal sequencing is explicit where it matters:
  - first-close before investment period commencement, if required;
  - valuation at each measurement date;
  - staking reward recognition upon receipt;
  - later fair value changes after receipt;
  - final close by the stated deadline.
- Where the valuation logic depends on a temporal state, such as remaining lock-up duration or post-token-launch status, make that dependency explicit in the operative text.
- If the source materials provide a deadline, condition, or threshold, carry it through all affected provisions and cross-references rather than leaving it only in one section.
- Keep the drafting notes temporally aligned with the draft so each open item maps to the provision it affects.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Produce the operative LPA draft as the primary deliverable and complete it before finalizing the drafting notes.
- The LPA should read as a complete fund agreement, not as a patch set of isolated clause inserts.
- Use industry-conventional fund-agreement headings and subheadings rather than a rubric-shaped checklist.
- Use bracketed placeholders, NTD markers, or equivalent drafting signals only for true open points that require business or counsel input.
- In the companion drafting notes, organize open issues by affected provision and state the decision needed, the reason it is open, and the downstream drafting impact.
- Keep the notes concise but complete enough for the GP or counsel to resolve each point without rereading the whole draft.
- Before ending, ensure the file names requested by the task are satisfied: the fund II LPA draft must exist and be non-empty, and the drafting notes must also exist and be non-empty.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.