CustodyStress
Archive › Vendor lockout
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01019

The court approved the release of approximately $270 million in cash held in Voyager's

Constrained
Case description
In August 2022, distressed Voyager customers submitted letters to the bankruptcy judge in New York begging for their funds back. Many described having deposited life savings, home down payment money, or medical funds. The court approved the release of approximately $270 million in cash held in Voyager's FDIC-insured bank account, but the crypto assets remained frozen. The letters revealed that Voyager had marketed itself as a safe, insured product without making the crypto custody risks clear.
Custody context
Stress conditionVendor lockout
Custody systemExchange custody
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2022
CountryUnited States
Structural dependencies observed
Institutional cooperation required
What this illustrates
Getting access back required help from an institution — and that help wasn't available. 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
Related cases involving vendor lockout
170 cases involve vendor lockout 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
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