CustodyStress
Archive › Forced relocation
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01324

Forced relocation — exchange custody (2025)

Blocked
Case description
Bitcoin holders in conflict-affected regions of East Africa faced complete access disruption in 2025 as civil war in Sudan and ongoing conflicts in parts of Ethiopia destroyed financial infrastructure and made internet connectivity unreliable or unavailable. Exchange-custody users had no access mechanism when connectivity was severed. Self-custody holders with hardware wallets and documented seed phrases retained theoretical access—wallets could be restored from any location with internet—but practical access required physical relocation to a region with stable connectivity. Bitcoin adoption in the region had been driven partly by the failure of conventional banking infrastructure during prior conflict phases.
Custody context
Stress conditionForced relocation
Custody systemExchange custody
OutcomeBlocked
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountrySudan / Ethiopia
Structural dependencies observed
Legal process requiredInstitutional cooperation required
What this illustrates
Before anyone could access the funds, a legal process had to be completed first. Access was not recoverable.
Outcome interpretation
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving forced relocation
91 cases involve forced relocation 512 cases involve exchange custody 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