CustodyStress
Archive › Vendor lockout
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01366

The April 2025 FTX distribution record date for mid-range creditors saw a significant

Constrained
Case description
The April 2025 FTX distribution record date for mid-range creditors (claims above $50,000) saw a significant group of creditors discover that their claim had been disputed or placed in an objection queue by the FTX estate. Disputed claims were not eligible for distribution until the objection was resolved through the bankruptcy court process. Creditors who had purchased FTX claims in the secondary market, or whose accounts had unusual activity flagged by the estate's review process, were disproportionately affected. The resolution of disputed claims was expected to take until late 2025 or beyond.
Custody context
Stress conditionVendor lockout
Custody systemExchange custody
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
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