CustodyStress
Archive › Seed phrase unavailable
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-00772

Device stolen — hardware wallet (2020)

Indeterminate
Case description
A user stored their seed in a fireproof safe that was stolen during a home burglary in May 2020. The thieves opened the safe using a cutting tool. The seed card was taken along with cash and documents. The hardware device was not stored in the safe and was unaffected, but would eventually require the seed for device recovery.
Custody context
Stress conditionSeed phrase unavailable
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeIndeterminate
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2020
CountryUnknown
Structural dependencies observed
Single point of failure
What this illustrates
There was only one way in. When that path was gone, so was access. It's not clear whether anyone ever regained access.
Outcome interpretation
Not enough information is available to determine the outcome.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
Forum post
Related cases involving seed phrase unavailable
146 cases involve seed phrase unavailable 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.