Fund Base Camp is a digital document custodian for private-market SPVs. Sponsors deposit Forward Purchase Agreements, payment records, and security documents; we hash them, anchor the hashes to the Bitcoin blockchain, and return verification codes that any investor can use, on demand, to prove their custody record exists exactly as represented. No login. No phone calls. No waiting on a fund administrator.
Three observations led to Fund Base Camp. None of them are new; they're just what happens when private-market activity moves faster than the infrastructure underneath it.
For decades, investors in private-market vehicles have relied on a soft form of trust: the sponsor says "we hold your subscription documents," and the investor accepts that statement, often forever, often without ever asking what would happen if it stopped being true. For institutional allocators, the soft form is supplemented by fund-administrator paperwork that takes days to retrieve and reads, when retrieved, exactly like the email the sponsor would have written anyway.
The first observation was simple: investors in private-market SPVs do not have, and have never had, a way to verify their custody record on demand. Public-market investors take this for granted — a brokerage statement, a transfer-agent record, a blockchain explorer — but the private-market equivalent stops at "ask your fund admin and wait." The asymmetry has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with the absence of an entity whose only job is to make custody verifiable.
The second observation was about cost. Traditional fund administrators charge $25,000 to $75,000 per year per SPV, and their "custody" is a spreadsheet cell that says yes. Bringing one on for a single-asset $5–20M SPV destroys the unit economics. The sponsors we know skip the admin, the investors notice, and the trust gap propagates.
The third observation was that the missing piece — verifiable, cryptographically-anchored document custody — is a small enough operation that one focused entity could provide it across many SPVs at unit economics that work, provided that entity was independent of any one sponsor. The cryptography is free. The storage is cheap. The attestation and insurance are the cost basis, and they amortize across every record under custody.
We did not invent any of the primitives here. We assembled them into something that didn't exist as a service, and gave it the legal entity and the insurance and the attestation that turn primitives into a credible custodian. FBC · founding note
So Fund Base Camp was set up as the missing piece. A separate legal entity, separate signers, separate bank accounts, separate insurance, separate operational discipline. Sponsors send us documents; we hash them, anchor them, and stand behind the cryptography with insurance and an annual independent attestation. Investors verify on demand at a public URL with no account.
A custodian is only as credible as its separation from the parties whose documents it holds. FBC's separation is structural — its own entity, its own signers, its own banking, its own IT — not merely asserted.
Operational separation works at four layers:
Separation is reviewed quarterly by FBC's own counsel, reflected in the Custody Services Agreement, and reaffirmed at each insurance renewal. The annual AUP includes a procedure to verify that the separation continues to be in force as represented.
Principles in this kind of business are easy to write and harder to keep. These are the four we orient around — they constrain product decisions, hiring decisions, and pricing decisions.
Every claim our verification page makes can be re-checked against a public artifact — the Bitcoin blockchain — by anyone with the proof file. We will not introduce primitives that require trusting us.
Insurance carriers, attestation firm, architecture, personnel controls — published openly at /security. We default to publishing.
The verification endpoint is public, free, and forever. The receipt PDF is free. The API for verification is free. Investors should never be asked for credentials, payments, or accounts to confirm that what they were told to expect is in fact in custody.
Operational separation is real or it isn't. Separate signers, separate banking, separate IT — or none of it counts. We will refuse engagements that require us to commingle.
A custodian's credibility compounds — by SPV count, by attestation cadence, by the boring track record of every verification request returning the right answer. The roadmap below is what compounds the credibility further.
Onboard Limen Markets Series 2026-A as the first custody client. Engage CPA firm; publish first AUP report. Bind insurance lines. Ship verification endpoint, receipt PDF, dashboard, ingestion API.
Additional external sponsors live, broadening the custody base. SOC 2 Type I issued. Webhooks, JS widget, RFC 3161 co-anchor available. Insurance limits scaled with AUM-under-custody.
SOC 2 Type II issued; the AUP becomes complementary rather than primary for institutional audiences. Multi-sponsor scale; named contacts for Tier 03 platforms. Public proof-file mirror, in case anyone wants belt-and-suspenders.
DISCLAIMER The roadmap above describes intent, not commitments. Insurance limits, attestation cadence, and feature rollouts are subject to operational and counsel review and may shift. Material changes are announced in our quarterly note and reflected at /security.