NAV & reporting

The per-unit number your LPs subscribe on, rebuilt from the chain and reconciled to it.

NAV is inherited, not computed

NAV is the number you’re actually judged on. It goes to your LPs, to your administrator, and eventually to your auditor. Everything else on this site exists to make it correct.

Which is the uncomfortable part, because NAV isn’t really computed so much as inherited. It’s the sum of positions derived from transactions that somebody, or something, had to interpret. Every judgement made upstream arrives silently in the number you send your investors. What that multicall meant. What that unquoted token is worth. Whether a balance grew because it earned yield or because a transfer got missed.

You didn’t make those judgements. Your tool did, on your behalf, and it didn’t tell you.

One fund under three lenses: what it holds, why the balance moved over the period, and which kind of source produced each price. All three sit under a single NAV figure.

Those judgements do not disappear. They sit one layer down, in what the fund holds, in what moved over the period, and in where each price came from.

A percent here, thirteen percent there

A NAV is only ever as good as the positions and prices underneath it, which is where everything on the previous pages comes home to roost.

An asset held at par that shouldn’t be. A position recorded in the wrong unit. A bridge receivable that will never clear, sitting on your balance sheet as an asset that doesn’t exist. A vault whose exchange rate got applied twice.

None of these fail loudly. That’s the thing about them. They don’t break your NAV, they shift it. A percent here, thirteen percent there, plausibly, consistently, and usually in one direction.

Nobody finds this in a dashboard. It surfaces when your number finally meets somebody whose job it is to disbelieve it. An administrator computing a shadow NAV who gets a different answer. An auditor who asks how you arrived at a valuation and doesn’t accept “that’s what the tool said.”

And by then it’s been in front of your LPs for two quarters.

A NAV that walks

A close that finishes on time, and an audit you get through without a scramble.

That’s what you’re actually buying, if we’re honest. Not software. The outcome.

Concretely, it means a NAV that walks. The movement from one period’s balance to the next decomposes into flows, income, realised gains and the change in unrealised, and it ties out to the cent. If it doesn’t tie out, it isn’t a NAV. It’s an assertion.

It means fees computed against a high-water mark that properly accounts for the capital that actually flowed, so you aren’t charging performance on new subscriptions. It means being able to say why the return was what it was, and how much of it came from flows, how much from yield, how much from price. And it means being able to show any of that, on request, without a spreadsheet materialising out of nowhere at ten at night.

The hard transactions shouldn’t land on your desk. They should land on ours.

Where the P&L comes from

Flows, yield and price answer the question at the fund level. Attribution answers the next one: which positions produced those numbers.

We produce it for two audiences. Your LPs are entitled to know what earned their return, line by line. You need it to run the book, because a position that costs you money every period still looks fine inside a positive total.

Attribution runs per position. Every account on the balance sheet gets a price effect and a yield effect, including the plain token balances, the native balances and the exchange balances that sit under no protocol.

One NAV move opened twice. Level one walks the period balance with flows and a single performance bar. Level two breaks that bar into four position types. Level three splits each one per position into price effect and yield effect, where YT-eETH shows a loss of 0.10.

Eight positions here, and one of them lost money. YT-eETH gave back 0.10 while the fund made 2.14. That is a decision you can now make: hold it, size it differently, or close it. Collapse the same move into one performance figure and you get 2.14, which is reportable but not actionable.

Concentration works the same way. Four position types produced this period’s performance and two of them made 71% of it. That tells you where the risk sits, which is what you want in front of you before you add to either one.

Attribution never reads the committed NAV. It builds from the balance sheet upward, so it doubles as an independent check on the headline rather than a restatement of it.

That’s the difference between buying a tool and engaging a service, and it’s more or less the whole reason we exist.