CustodyStress
Archive › Owner death
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-00199

Owner death — exchange custody (2015)

Survives
Case description
An exchange customer died in October 2015 leaving a will that bequeathed 'all cryptocurrency holdings' to their children. The exchange required each beneficiary to complete individual identity verification and submit notarised inheritance documentation. The process took four months due to cross-jurisdictional notarisation requirements.
Custody context
Stress conditionOwner death
Custody systemExchange custody
OutcomeSurvives
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2015
CountryUnknown
Structural dependencies observed
Legal process requiredSingle point of failureInstitutional cooperation required
Outcome interpretation
Access remained possible under the reported conditions.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
Forum post
Evidence link
https://medium.com/@wayne_huang/rsa-2015-panel-bitcoin-s-future-threats-expert-s-roundtable-based-on-150-case-studies-92cc35e68e30
Related cases involving owner death
The estate value at 2025 Bitcoin prices was approximately $2.3 million.
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Survives
The specialist was able to identify the correct derivation path and successfully
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Survives
Owner death — hardware wallet (2025)
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Blocked
119 cases involve owner death 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