CustodyStress
Archive › Owner death
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01400

Owner death — hardware wallet (2025)

Blocked
Case description
A 2025 report by Ledger estimated that between 2.3 and 4 million Bitcoin—representing 11–18% of total supply—had been permanently lost, with owner deaths without inheritance plans cited as a major contributing factor alongside early-era mining losses and deliberate disposal. The report projected that $6 trillion in cryptocurrency assets would transfer via inheritance by 2045. The scale of anticipated transfers prompted a significant expansion of specialised digital estate planning practices and custody services with built-in inheritance features, though industry observers noted that awareness of the need for such planning remained low among the general population of Bitcoin holders.
Custody context
Stress conditionOwner death
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeBlocked
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryInternational
Structural dependencies observed
Single point of failure
What this illustrates
There was only one way in. When that path was gone, so was access. Access was not recoverable.
Outcome interpretation
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving owner death
119 cases involve owner death 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.