CustodyStress
Archive › Legal or authority constraint
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01166

The SEC's enforcement actions against Coinbase and Binance named over 60 tokens as

Constrained
Case description
In June 2023, the SEC's enforcement actions against Coinbase and Binance named over 60 tokens as securities. Both exchanges moved quickly to delist or restrict trading of named tokens. Customers who held positions in those tokens on either exchange found they could not sell through normal trading interfaces and were instead given withdrawal-only access with a deadline. Customers who missed the deadline or were in restricted jurisdictions had assets locked pending legal resolution of each token's regulatory status.
Custody context
Stress conditionLegal or authority constraint
Custody systemExchange custody
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2023
CountryInternational
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. 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
Evidence link
https://milkroad.com/bankruptcies/
Related cases involving legal or authority constraint
Garantex—a sanctioned Russian cryptocurrency exchange—had its infrastructure seized by
Exchange custody · 2025 Blocked
Legal authority constraint — hardware wallet (2025)
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Constrained
Legal authority constraint — exchange custody (2025)
Exchange custody · 2025 Constrained
39 cases involve legal or authority constraint 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
Where Bitcoin Custody Intersects Legal and Fiduciary Authority
Where custody creates gaps in estate planning, fiduciary duty, and professional responsibility.
Professional Scope Boundary Matrix
What each professional or product covers, what they do not, and where gaps form between them.
The Independent Assessment Layer in Bitcoin Custody
How independent diagnostic layers emerge when multiple parties depend on shared infrastructure.
Terms guide
Outcome terms
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.
Structural terms
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