CustodyStress
Archive › Owner death
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01330

Owner death — hardware wallet (2025)

Blocked
Case description
A 2025 analysis cited in multiple estate planning publications estimated that between $140 billion and $200 billion in Bitcoin—representing 17–23% of circulating supply—was permanently lost, with a significant proportion attributable to holders who died without proper inheritance documentation. As Bitcoin's price exceeded $100,000 in late 2024 and rose further in 2025, the magnitude of the lost supply created measurable scarcity effects. Estate planning specialists reported a 40–60% increase in new client inquiries from Bitcoin holders seeking to establish inheritance arrangements, driven in part by media coverage of both the supply loss statistics and high-profile individual cases.
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.
Original text
Rate this translation
Your feedback will be used to help improve Google Translate