Closed-ended Vault

[a1q123456]

High Level Overview of Change

Context of Change

Type of Change

• New XLS Draft
• XLS Update (changes to an existing XLS)
• XLS Status Change (e.g., Draft → Final, Draft → Stagnant)
• Process/Meta (changes to CONTRIBUTING.md, XLS-1, templates, etc.)
• Infrastructure (CI, workflows, scripts, website)
• Documentation (README updates, typo fixes)

[github-actions]

⚠️ Self-Assigned XLS Number Warning

This PR adds a new XLS directory with a self-assigned number. XLS numbers should be assigned by the CI system using the XLS-draft-* naming convention.

Directory	Self-Assigned Number
XLS-0103-term-vault	103

What to do

Please rename your directory to use the draft convention instead (e.g., XLS-draft-my-feature). An XLS number will be automatically assigned after a maintainer approves the PR.

---

This warning was automatically generated.

[dangell7]

Not 100% sure you need a RedemptionDate here but if the clients asked for that then great.

EDIT: Clients are open to Redemption Date/Fees, so are we not adding RedemptionFee to allow for early redemption penalties on both closed and open end funds.

[dangell7]

The subscription window implicitly starts the moment the vault is created, since now <= SubscriptionDate is treated as the Subscription phase. That ties the offering start to whenever the issuer uploads the vault, which may not be convenient for their clients. I'd make the window explicit with OfferingStart and OfferingEnd.

On naming, XLS-78 already defines Subscription ledger objects and transactions for recurring payments, so reusing the word for a vault phase will confuse tooling and docs. "Offering" avoids the collision and is the standard issuance-side term.

[Tapanito]

EDIT: Clients are open to Redemption Date/Fees, so are we not adding RedemptionFee to allow for early redemption penalties on both closed and open end funds.

No we are not adding fees. Those who want to exit early can do so via the CLOB.

Regarding XLS-78, and SubscriptionDate naming, the XLS in mention is a draft proposal, that, as far as I know, is not being implemented. A naming clash with a non-existent feature shouldn't cause any issues.

[gregtatcam]

LGTM