CustodyStress
Archive › Vendor lockout
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01314

Institutional lockout — FTX (2025)

Constrained
Case description
Multiple FTX creditors in jurisdictions newly added to the list of eligible distribution countries in January 2025 found that their distribution service providers—BitGo or Kraken—had not yet completed onboarding in those countries. The creditors had technically completed all FTX portal requirements but could not receive funds because their selected DSP had not yet activated service for their jurisdiction. FTX's portal showed their requirements as complete, but the DSP's own portal showed geographic eligibility as pending. These creditors were queued for subsequent distribution dates once the DSP expanded coverage.
Custody context
Stress conditionVendor lockout
Custody systemExchange custody
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryInternational
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