CustodyStress
Archive › Physical coercion
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01382

Physical coercion — hardware wallet (2025)

Constrained
Case description
A 2025 analysis by Chainalysis found a statistically significant correlation between Bitcoin price movements and the frequency of physical wrench attacks, suggesting that rising prices directly drove opportunistic targeting of known crypto holders. The mid-year report noted that 2025 was on track to have potentially twice as many physical attacks as the prior record year. Analysts observed that attacks were no longer limited to high-net-worth crypto executives: victims included teachers, construction workers, and individuals with modest holdings, targeted because their crypto ownership was publicly visible through social media posts, wallet address disclosures, or exchange-related data leaks.
Custody context
Stress conditionPhysical coercion
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryInternational
Structural dependencies observed
Biometric or physical presence
What this illustrates
Access required in-person verification that couldn't be arranged under the circumstances. Whether full access was ultimately possible is unclear, but significant delay or outside intervention was involved.
Outcome interpretation
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving physical coercion
105 cases involve physical coercion 274 cases involve hardware wallet (single key) View archive statistics →
This archive documents observed custody survivability failures. It does not attempt to document all Bitcoin losses or security incidents. Submit a case
← All cases
Framework references
Terms guide
Survives
Access remained possible under the reported conditions.
Constrained
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Blocked
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Indeterminate
There was not enough information to determine the outcome.
Single-person knowledge
Recovery depended on information or capability held by one individual who was unavailable.
Institutional dependence
Recovery depended on a third-party institution or service that was inaccessible or uncooperative.
Documentation gap
Recovery depended on instructions that were missing, incomplete, or unclear.
Authority mismatch
The person with legal authority to act did not have operational access, or vice versa.
Original text
Rate this translation
Your feedback will be used to help improve Google Translate