Bitcoin Estate Planning for Venture Capitalists and Fund Managers: Carried Interest, GP Stakes, and the 2026 Guide

The Fund Manager's Unique Estate Problem

Most estate planning literature treats Bitcoin as a single asset class with a single set of planning considerations. Hold it, custody it, transfer it to a trust, apply the stepped-up basis at death. Straightforward enough for a software engineer sitting on 500 BTC in cold storage.

But if you manage a venture fund — particularly one with meaningful Bitcoin or crypto exposure — your estate is not one thing. It is at least four distinct assets, each with different legal character, different tax treatment, and different transfer mechanics:

• Carried interest — your share of fund profits, taxed as long-term capital gains after the three-year holding period under §1061, but only realized when the fund distributes
• General partnership interest — your ownership stake in the fund entity itself, which has value beyond carry: management fee streams, governance rights, brand equity
• Management company ownership — the entity that collects management fees, employs your team, and constitutes the "franchise" value of your firm
• Personal Bitcoin holdings — whatever you hold in your own name, outside the fund structure, as a direct property interest

Each of these assets enters your gross estate differently. Each responds to different planning techniques. And the failure mode is not merely suboptimal — it is catastrophic. A fund manager who dies without coordinating these four layers can leave behind a management company with no authorized successor, carried interest that cannot be distributed, LP consent requirements that paralyze the fund, and a personal Bitcoin portfolio that probate courts cannot access.

Under the current federal estate tax framework — the $15 million per-person exemption established under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which remains in effect through 2026 — many fund managers have gross estates that exceed the exemption threshold when you combine all four asset layers. The exemption absorbs a significant portion of most estates, but a GP with $20 million in carry, a $10 million management company, and 100 BTC is looking at a gross estate that demands sophisticated planning. For a deeper foundation on how Bitcoin fits into the estate tax framework, start with our comprehensive estate planning guide.

Carried Interest and Bitcoin: Layered Capital Gains

Carried interest is the profit share — typically 20% — that the general partner earns on fund gains above a preferred return hurdle. Under §1061 of the Internal Revenue Code, carried interest is eligible for long-term capital gains treatment only if the underlying assets have been held for more than three years. If the fund realizes a gain on an asset held for less than three years, the GP's carry on that gain is taxed as short-term capital gain — ordinary income rates.

This creates a distinctive layered structure when the fund holds Bitcoin. Consider a crypto VC fund that both invests in equity of Bitcoin-related companies and holds direct Bitcoin positions. The fund's Bitcoin gains flow through to the GP as carried interest. But the capital gains character of those Bitcoin gains is determined at the fund level (how long the fund held the Bitcoin), and then the carry is subject to a second timing test at the GP level under §1061.

The estate planning implications are significant. Carried interest is not a fixed asset with a deterministic value. It is a contingent right to future fund distributions, the timing and amount of which depend on fund performance, realization events, and the manager's continued involvement. Valuing carry for estate tax purposes requires sophisticated modeling — a discounted cash flow analysis of expected future distributions, probability-weighted across scenarios.

The §1061 Interaction with Estate Transfers

When carried interest is transferred — whether by gift during life or by bequest at death — the three-year holding period under §1061 does not reset. The transferee steps into the transferor's shoes for purposes of the holding period. This means that if you transfer carry to an irrevocable trust, the trust inherits your holding period, and distributions to the trust receive long-term capital gains treatment if the underlying assets have been held for three years at the fund level.

However, there is a critical nuance: the stepped-up basis at death under §1014 applies to the carried interest itself — the partnership interest, valued at fair market value on the date of death. This does not change the §1061 holding period for the underlying fund assets. The beneficiary receives a stepped-up basis in the partnership interest but still faces the three-year rule on future carry distributions tied to assets acquired after death.

For fund managers with significant unrealized carried interest — which describes nearly every GP of a fund in vintage years two through five — the estate planning question becomes: is it better to transfer carry during life (at current discounted value, preserving the holding period) or hold it until death (receiving the stepped-up basis but including the full date-of-death value in the gross estate)?

The GP Stake as Estate Asset

Your carried interest gets the attention. But the general partnership interest itself — your ownership in the GP entity — is a distinct asset with separate estate treatment. The GP interest encompasses several economic rights beyond carry:

• Management fee stream — typically 2% of committed capital annually, paid regardless of fund performance, often for a 10-year fund life plus extensions
• Governance rights — the authority to make investment decisions, call capital, distribute proceeds, and manage fund operations
• Brand and franchise value — the ability to raise subsequent funds under the firm's name, which compounds with each successful vintage
• GP commitment — the 1-5% of fund capital that the GP invests alongside LPs, which generates returns on the same terms as LP capital

All of these components are includable in your gross estate. The management fee stream alone — $4 million per year on a $200 million fund — has a present value that can exceed the federal exemption amount by itself. When you add the franchise value of raising Fund III, Fund IV, and beyond, the GP interest becomes one of the most valuable and most complex assets in any fund manager's estate.

The good news: GP interests are illiquid, restricted, and non-transferable without LP consent — characteristics that support meaningful valuation discounts for estate planning purposes. The bad news: the IRS has become increasingly aggressive in challenging the magnitude of those discounts, particularly under §2703 and §2704.

The Management Company Succession Problem

The management company — the entity that employs the investment team, leases office space, contracts with service providers, and collects management fees — presents a succession challenge that is fundamentally different from any other estate planning problem.

When a fund manager dies mid-fund, the LP agreement's "key person" provision is triggered. Nearly every institutional LP agreement contains a key person clause that suspends the fund's investment period if certain named individuals (usually the founder and one or two senior partners) are no longer actively involved. The fund does not immediately terminate, but it can no longer make new investments. Existing portfolio companies continue to be managed, but the fund enters a holding pattern.

The consequences cascade:

• LP consent requirements — most LPAs require a supermajority (typically 66-75%) of LPs to approve a successor GP or to lift the key person suspension
• Management fee reduction — some LPAs reduce management fees from committed capital to invested capital after a key person event, immediately cutting the management company's revenue
• No-fault removal rights — in many modern LPAs, a key person event triggers a no-fault removal right, allowing LPs to replace the GP entirely
• Successor GP designation — the estate plan must specify who steps into the GP role, and that person must be acceptable to the LP base

This is not a theoretical concern. When a sole GP dies without a succession plan, the fund can enter a death spiral: management fees decline, the team leaves, portfolio companies lose board representation, and LP relationships dissolve. The franchise value — which might represent tens of millions of dollars — evaporates in months.

The estate plan for a fund manager must therefore include not just asset transfer mechanics but operational succession: a named successor GP, pre-negotiated LP consent, team retention arrangements (typically carried interest vesting acceleration or retention bonuses funded by key person life insurance), and clear authority delegation documents that allow the management company to continue operating during the transition period. Our business succession planning guide covers the framework in detail.

Bitcoin in Fund vs. Personal Portfolio

A fund manager's relationship with Bitcoin typically exists on both sides of a wall: the fund holds Bitcoin (or Bitcoin-related equity) as a fund asset, and the manager personally holds Bitcoin as a direct investment. These are entirely different assets for estate planning purposes.

Bitcoin Held Through the Fund

Bitcoin held by the fund is not directly owned by the GP. The GP owns a partnership interest in the fund entity. That partnership interest is reported on Schedule K-1, and the GP's share of fund income, gains, losses, and deductions flows through to the GP's personal return. For estate tax purposes, the GP's interest in the fund — including the right to future carried interest distributions — is valued as a partnership interest, not as a pro rata share of the fund's underlying Bitcoin.

This distinction matters enormously. A partnership interest in an illiquid venture fund with transfer restrictions, capital call obligations, and a 10-year life is worth significantly less than the same dollar amount of Bitcoin held in a personal wallet. The valuation discount — reflecting lack of marketability and minority interest — can reduce the estate tax value by 25-40%.

Bitcoin Held Personally

Personal Bitcoin is property under IRC §7701. It enters the gross estate at fair market value on the date of death (or the alternate valuation date, six months later). There are no partnership discounts, no lack of marketability adjustments, no minority interest deductions. One hundred Bitcoin worth $10 million on the date of death adds $10 million to the gross estate, full stop.

The planning implication is clear: Bitcoin held through fund structures benefits from structural discounts that personal Bitcoin does not. This does not mean fund managers should avoid personal Bitcoin ownership — the direct holding provides liquidity, flexibility, and stepped-up basis advantages that fund interests cannot replicate. But it does mean that the estate plan must treat these as separate asset classes with separate planning strategies.

The Co-Invest Estate Play

Many venture fund managers personally co-invest alongside the fund in specific deals. The LP agreement typically grants the GP the right — sometimes the obligation — to invest personal capital in certain transactions on the same terms as the fund. In the Bitcoin and crypto space, these co-investments might include equity in Bitcoin mining companies, protocol tokens received as part of SAFT agreements, or direct Bitcoin positions acquired alongside fund allocations.

Co-invest stakes receive partnership treatment when structured through a co-invest vehicle (a common parallel fund structure). This creates an estate planning opportunity that pure personal Bitcoin ownership does not: the co-invest interest, as a partnership interest in an illiquid vehicle with transfer restrictions, qualifies for the same valuation discounts available to the main fund interest.

The play works like this: the GP co-invests $2 million alongside the fund in a Bitcoin-adjacent company. The co-invest is structured through a co-invest LLC. The GP transfers the co-invest LLC interest to an irrevocable trust. Because the LLC interest is illiquid, non-transferable without manager consent, and subject to the same multi-year hold as the main fund, the fair market value for gift tax purposes reflects a 25-35% discount from net asset value.

A $2 million co-investment, discounted to $1.3 million for gift tax purposes, uses $1.3 million of the GP's lifetime gift tax exemption. If the underlying investment appreciates to $8 million, the full $8 million passes to the trust beneficiaries — and the $6.7 million of appreciation is entirely outside the GP's estate.

This technique is particularly powerful for crypto VC managers because the underlying investments tend to be highly volatile and high-growth — exactly the asset profile that maximizes the benefit of early transfer to an irrevocable trust. The more the asset appreciates after the transfer, the more estate tax is avoided. For a comprehensive treatment of family partnership structures that enable these discounts, see our guide to Bitcoin family limited partnerships.

Valuation Discounts for Fund Interests

Valuation discounts are the most powerful tool in the fund manager's estate planning arsenal. Two categories of discount apply to venture fund interests:

Lack of Marketability Discount (DLOM)

There is no public market for GP interests in a venture fund. While a secondary market exists for LP interests (and has grown meaningfully in recent years), GP interests are fundamentally different: they carry fiduciary obligations, key person risk, and are typically non-transferable without LP supermajority consent. Studies of restricted stock transactions and pre-IPO marketability consistently support DLOMs of 20-35% for GP interests.

Minority Interest Discount

If the GP interest is shared among multiple partners — as is the case in most institutional venture firms — each individual partner's interest represents a minority stake in the GP entity. A 30% interest in a GP that controls a $200 million fund does not command the same per-unit value as a 100% interest. Minority interest discounts of 10-20% are supportable for non-controlling GP stakes.

Combined Effect

Discounts are applied multiplicatively, not additively. A 30% DLOM and a 15% minority interest discount combine to a total discount of approximately 40.5% (1 - (0.70 × 0.85) = 0.405). A GP interest with a net asset value of $20 million can be valued at approximately $11.9 million for estate and gift tax purposes.

This discount is the engine that drives nearly every advanced estate planning technique for fund managers. GRATs, dynasty trusts, and family limited partnerships all become dramatically more effective when the transferred asset enters the structure at a 30-40% discount to intrinsic value.

The IRS has challenged aggressive discounts under §2703 (disregarding certain restrictions) and §2704 (treating lapsed voting or liquidation rights as transfers). Fund managers should ensure that valuation discounts are supported by a qualified appraisal from an accredited business valuation professional, and that the restrictions driving the discount are commercially reasonable — not manufactured for tax avoidance purposes. Our detailed analysis of §2703 and §2704 valuation discount rules covers the current enforcement landscape.

GRAT Funded with GP Stake

The grantor retained annuity trust is the workhorse of fund manager estate planning. The mechanics are straightforward: the GP transfers a discounted GP interest to a GRAT, retains the right to receive annuity payments for a fixed term, and any appreciation above the §7520 rate passes to the remainder beneficiaries estate-tax-free.

For fund managers, the GRAT is particularly powerful because of the "J-curve" economics of venture capital. A fund interest transferred to a GRAT in years one through three — when NAV is flat or negative due to management fees and the valley of death — enters the trust at a low (and discounted) value. As the fund matures and portfolio companies achieve exits in years four through eight, the carried interest realizes, and the appreciation flows entirely to the remaindermen.

Consider a GP who transfers a 50% interest in the GP entity — valued at $5 million after valuation discounts — to a two-year zeroed-out GRAT. The §7520 rate determines the required annuity payments. If the GP interest appreciates to $15 million over the GRAT term (as carry is realized on successful exits), the $10 million of excess appreciation passes to the GP's children or dynasty trust completely free of estate and gift tax.

Rolling GRATs for Fund Managers

Because venture fund economics are inherently uncertain — a single portfolio company exit can move carry from zero to eight figures — many fund managers use a rolling GRAT strategy. Each year, the GP funds a new two-year GRAT with a portion of the GP interest. If a particular vintage underperforms, the GRAT simply returns the assets via the annuity — no tax cost. If a vintage outperforms, the excess passes tax-free.

This strategy converts the binary risk of venture capital into a systematic wealth transfer program. Over a 20-year career managing multiple funds, the cumulative tax-free transfer can reach nine figures. For a complete treatment of GRAT mechanics and implementation, see our Bitcoin GRAT strategy guide.

The LP Estate Problem

Not every fund manager's estate planning challenge is on the GP side. Many fund managers are also LPs — in their own fund (the GP commitment), in other managers' funds (cross-investments common in the venture community), and in fund-of-funds vehicles. Limited partnership interests in crypto venture funds present a distinct set of estate planning problems.

The core issue is illiquidity. A typical venture fund has a 10-year life with two one-year extensions. There is no redemption right. The secondary market for LP interests exists but is thin, particularly for interests in smaller or emerging managers. A fund manager who dies holding LP interests in five different venture funds may leave behind assets that cannot be liquidated for three to seven years.

This creates two problems. First, the estate tax is due nine months after death, but the LP interests may not generate cash for years. The executor must find liquidity elsewhere — personal Bitcoin, life insurance, or borrowing against the LP interests — to pay the estate tax on illiquid assets. Second, the estate must value these interests at the date of death, which requires obtaining fair market value estimates from each fund (or commissioning independent valuations) at a moment when the interests cannot be sold at any price.

The planning solution is proactive: fund managers who hold significant LP interests should maintain sufficient liquid assets (including personal Bitcoin) or life insurance to cover the estate tax on the illiquid portion of the estate. The alternative — forcing a secondary sale of LP interests at distressed pricing to generate estate tax liquidity — destroys value that took a career to build.

Side Pocket Bitcoin

Some crypto venture funds maintain separate vehicles or "side pockets" for direct Bitcoin holdings. These structures emerged because LPs in a venture fund expect capital to be deployed into equity investments — not held as a commodity position that the LP could buy directly. Side pockets solve this by isolating the Bitcoin exposure into a parallel vehicle with different fee terms, different liquidity provisions, and sometimes different investor eligibility.

For estate planning purposes, the GP's interest in the side pocket is a separate partnership interest from the main fund. It may have different transfer restrictions, different valuation mechanics (Bitcoin is marked to market daily, unlike illiquid venture equity), and different distribution waterfalls. The estate plan must account for the side pocket as a distinct asset.

The key distinction: a side pocket holding liquid Bitcoin supports a smaller lack-of-marketability discount than the main fund holding illiquid venture equity. The underlying asset (Bitcoin) is freely traded on public markets. The discount reflects only the partnership-level restrictions — transfer limitations, withdrawal notice periods, lockup provisions — not the illiquidity of the underlying asset. Expect DLOMs of 10-20% for side pocket interests versus 25-35% for main fund interests.

The Fund Manager's Personal Bitcoin

After spending their professional lives evaluating Bitcoin's potential, many fund managers hold substantial personal Bitcoin positions. This personal portfolio requires its own estate plan — separate from, but coordinated with, the fund-related planning.

Personal Bitcoin held in a cold storage wallet is property includable in the gross estate at fair market value. No partnership discounts apply. No lack-of-marketability discount applies — Bitcoin is one of the most liquid assets on the planet. The full date-of-death value enters the gross estate.

The planning toolkit for personal Bitcoin is well-established:

• Dynasty trust — transfer Bitcoin to a South Dakota or Nevada dynasty trust to remove appreciation from the gross estate while maintaining family control across generations
• Annual exclusion gifts — transfer $19,000 per beneficiary per year (2026 amount) in Bitcoin to reduce the gross estate without using lifetime exemption
• Spousal lifetime access trust (SLAT) — transfer Bitcoin to an irrevocable trust that benefits the spouse, removing it from the estate while preserving indirect access
• Intentionally defective grantor trust (IDGT) — sell Bitcoin to a grantor trust in exchange for a promissory note, freezing the value for estate tax purposes while the trust captures all future appreciation
• Charitable remainder trust (CRT) — contribute appreciated Bitcoin to a CRT to receive a current income tax deduction, defer capital gains, and remove the asset from the gross estate

The critical coordination issue: lifetime exemption allocation. A fund manager using a GRAT for GP interests, annual exclusion gifts for personal Bitcoin, and a SLAT for the spouse must carefully allocate the $15 million lifetime exemption across all programs. Over-allocation to one structure starves the others. Under-allocation wastes exemption that, under current law, may decrease if the TCJA sunsets.

Case Study: Marcus Chen

The Estate Inventory

Marcus's gross estate, before any planning, includes the following:

• GP interest in Fund IV — unrealized carried interest estimated at $25 million (fund is in year four of a ten-year life, portfolio showing 3x gross MOIC)
• Management company — Digital Frontier Management LLC, generating $4 million/year, valued at approximately $12-16 million based on revenue multiples for institutional asset management firms
• GP commitment — $4 million invested alongside LPs in Fund IV
• Personal Bitcoin — 100 BTC, approximately $10 million
• Co-invest positions — $3 million across four co-invest SPVs alongside Fund III and Fund IV deals
• LP interests — $2 million in LP stakes in three other managers' funds
• Traditional assets — residence, brokerage accounts, retirement accounts, approximately $5 million

Total gross estate before discounts: approximately $62-66 million. After the combined $30 million exemption (Marcus and Sarah's combined $15 million each), the taxable estate is approximately $32-36 million. At the 40% federal estate tax rate, the potential estate tax liability is $12.8-14.4 million.

The Integrated Plan

Step 1: Management Company Succession. Marcus designates his partner, Rebecca Torres, as successor GP. The LPA is amended to pre-approve Rebecca as successor, contingent on key person event. A $5 million key person life insurance policy funds team retention bonuses and covers the operational transition. The management company operating agreement includes a buy-sell agreement funded by cross-purchase life insurance between Marcus and Rebecca.

Step 2: GRAT for GP Interest. Marcus transfers 50% of his GP interest in Fund IV to a two-year zeroed-out GRAT. The GP interest is appraised at $8.5 million after a 32% combined valuation discount (DLOM + minority interest discount for the 50% stake). The GRAT annuity is set to the §7520 rate. As Fund IV's portfolio companies exit over years five through eight, the carry distributions flow to the GRAT. Any appreciation above the §7520 hurdle rate passes to Marcus's dynasty trust, estate-tax-free.

Step 3: Co-Invest to Irrevocable Trust. Marcus transfers his $3 million in co-invest SPV interests to an irrevocable dynasty trust. After a 28% DLOM, the gift tax value is $2.16 million — consuming $2.16 million of Marcus's lifetime exemption. If the co-invest positions appreciate to $12 million (realistic for early-stage crypto equity), the additional $9.84 million passes entirely outside the estate.

Step 4: Personal Bitcoin Planning. Marcus and Sarah each fund a SLAT with 25 BTC ($2.5 million each). The SLATs are structured as reciprocal trusts with sufficient differences to avoid the reciprocal trust doctrine. Each SLAT removes $2.5 million from the respective spouse's gross estate, consuming $2.5 million of each spouse's exemption. The remaining 50 BTC stays in Marcus's personal name to benefit from the stepped-up basis at death — a deliberate choice, because the 50 BTC in the SLATs will not receive a stepped-up basis but will be outside the estate.

Step 5: Annual Exclusion Program. Marcus and Sarah each gift $19,000 per child per year in Bitcoin — $114,000 per year total across three children (split gifts). Over 10 years, this transfers approximately $1.14 million in Bitcoin to the children's trusts without using any lifetime exemption. If Bitcoin appreciates 5x over that period, the value transferred is $5.7 million — entirely outside the estate.

Step 6: Estate Tax Liquidity. Marcus secures a $10 million second-to-die life insurance policy in an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT). The death benefit — payable outside the estate — provides liquidity to cover estate tax on the remaining taxable assets, particularly the illiquid LP interests and the management company value that cannot be quickly liquidated.

The Result

Before planning, Marcus's estate faced $12.8-14.4 million in federal estate tax. After implementing the integrated plan:

• GP interest appreciation above the §7520 rate passes tax-free via GRAT (estimated savings: $3-6 million in estate tax)
• Co-invest positions removed from estate at discounted value (estimated savings: $1.5-3.5 million)
• 50 BTC removed from estate via SLATs (savings on future appreciation: variable but potentially significant)
• Annual exclusion gifts systematically reduce estate over time
• Life insurance provides liquidity without increasing the taxable estate
• Management company succession ensures franchise value is preserved, not destroyed

The plan does not eliminate estate tax — with an estate of this magnitude, some tax is inevitable. But it reduces the liability by an estimated 40-60%, preserves the fund franchise through operational succession planning, and ensures that Marcus's personal Bitcoin position is distributed according to his wishes rather than probate court procedures.

The Integrated Action Plan

Every fund manager holding Bitcoin — whether through the fund, personally, or both — should work through these steps with their estate planning attorney:

1. Inventory all four asset layers — carried interest, GP stake, management company, and personal Bitcoin. Value each independently. Do not treat your "crypto exposure" as a single line item.
2. Commission a qualified appraisal of the GP interest and management company. The valuation discount is the foundation of every advanced planning technique. Without a defensible appraisal, the IRS will substitute their own valuation — and it will not be in your favor.
3. Review the LPA for key person provisions, successor GP designation requirements, and LP consent thresholds. Amend proactively — do not leave this to your estate's executor to negotiate with hostile LPs.
4. Model the GRAT opportunity based on the fund's vintage year and expected realization timeline. The optimal GRAT entry point is when the fund NAV is low and expected appreciation is high — typically years one through three.
5. Separate personal Bitcoin planning from fund interest planning. Use dynasty trusts, SLATs, or IDGTs for personal Bitcoin. Use GRATs and valuation discounts for fund interests. Coordinate exemption allocation across all programs.
6. Secure estate tax liquidity via second-to-die life insurance in an ILIT. The illiquidity of venture fund interests makes this non-negotiable — your estate cannot sell a GP stake on a nine-month timeline to pay the IRS.
7. Document custody arrangements for personal Bitcoin. Private keys, hardware wallets, exchange accounts, and multisig configurations must be accessible to the executor and successor trustee. A Bitcoin estate plan without custody documentation is worthless.
8. Revisit annually — fund performance, Bitcoin price movements, and tax law changes (particularly the potential TCJA sunset) all affect optimal planning. This is not a one-time exercise.

---

The intersection of venture capital economics and Bitcoin estate planning is one of the most complex — and most consequential — planning environments in private wealth management. The fund manager who treats their GP interest, management company, and personal Bitcoin as a unified estate planning challenge, rather than three separate problems, will transfer meaningfully more wealth to the next generation than the one who addresses each in isolation.

The tools exist. The exemption amounts — for now — are historically generous. The question is not whether to plan, but whether you will bring the same analytical rigor to your estate that you bring to your investment committee. Your LPs expect institutional discipline in how you manage their capital. Your family deserves the same in how you plan for what comes after.

Related Planning Guides

• Bitcoin Estate Planning: The Complete 2026 Guide
• Bitcoin GRAT: Transfer Appreciation Estate-Tax-Free
• Bitcoin Family Limited Partnership: Valuation Discounts and Transfer Strategy
• Bitcoin Business Succession Planning
• §2703 and §2704 Valuation Discounts for Bitcoin
• Bitcoin Valuation Discounts: Estate Planning Strategies
• Bitcoin Dynasty Trust: Perpetual Family Wealth
• Bitcoin Buy, Borrow, Die Strategy

This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice. Fund manager estate planning involves complex interactions between partnership law, securities regulation, federal tax law, and estate planning. Engage a qualified estate planning attorney and CPA with experience in both alternative fund structures and digital assets before implementing any strategy. This guide was current as of March 2026.