Markets and jurisdictions

68 native asset classes and 314 sub-asset class overlays across 56 of them, spanning the fund structures used in the major private capital jurisdictions. The full list, including per-jurisdiction structures, is published on the coverage page.

A partner with users in more than one country usually faces different eligibility evidence, different investor classifications and different reporting expectations in each. Those differences are configured per tenant rather than forcing one market's assumptions on the rest.

Where a market requires data to stay local, hosting jurisdiction can be selected for that tenant. Raise the requirement in discovery so it shapes the deployment from the start.

Three things change, and they change independently of each other. The investor classification test changes, so the evidence that proves a person may be offered a given opportunity is not portable across borders. The vehicle changes, so the same strategy is run through a limited partnership in one market and a trust or a corporate structure in another, with different reporting consequences. And the disclosure obligation changes, so the pack that satisfies one regulator is not automatically the pack another expects.

A partner that treats these as one configuration usually ends up hard coding the assumptions of whichever market it launched in, then discovering at the second market that eligibility logic and reporting templates are entangled with the first. Holding classification, structure and disclosure as separate per-tenant configuration is what makes the second market an onboarding exercise rather than a rebuild.

Networks with chapters or member firms in several countries carry a second problem beyond configuration: who can see what. A member firm in one jurisdiction generally cannot have its investor records visible to a sibling firm in another, even inside the same brand. That is handled by isolating each member inside the partner tenant, so the network sees its own aggregate operating picture while the underlying records stay separated on the lines the network's own agreements require.

The practical order is to launch in the market with the most demanding eligibility evidence rather than the easiest, because a configuration built for the strict case degrades cleanly into the permissive one and the reverse rarely holds. From there, each additional market is a configuration pass over classification, structure, disclosure and residency, run against the coverage already published rather than against a new integration.