Adding Bitcoin to an Estate Plan
Estate Plan Integration for Self-Custody Holdings
This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.
Two Systems Meet
A holder has an estate plan. The estate plan names people and assigns authority. The holder realizes the plan does not clearly account for bitcoin. The holder wants to add bitcoin to estate plan documents. The holder is present and calm. No emergency exists.
What follows covers what happens when a holder tries to integrate bitcoin into an existing estate plan. It also describes how integration exposes gaps between legal documents and technical custody.
Two Systems Meet
An estate plan is a legal system. It names people. It assigns authority. It describes who gets what. It operates through courts, attorneys, and legal processes.
Bitcoin custody is a technical system. It relies on keys. It relies on devices. It relies on knowledge of where things are stored. It operates through software and cryptography.
When a holder decides to add bitcoin to estate plan documents, these two systems meet. The act of adding bitcoin to estate plan integration forces them to reference each other.
What Estate Plans Name
An estate plan names people. An executor is named. Beneficiaries are named. Trustees may be named. The plan describes who has authority to act.
An estate plan names assets. It may list accounts. It may list property. It may describe categories of assets. The plan describes what passes to whom.
When a holder tries to include bitcoin in estate plan documents, the holder names bitcoin as an asset. The plan now mentions that bitcoin exists.
What Estate Plans Do Not Provide
An estate plan provides legal authority. It does not provide keys. It does not provide passwords. It does not provide seed phrases. It does not provide knowledge of where devices are stored.
Naming bitcoin in an estate plan creates legal recognition. It does not create technical access. The executor may have authority to manage bitcoin. The executor may not know how to find it.
Adding bitcoin to estate plan documents creates a reference. It does not create a bridge to the custody system.
The Integration Gap
The system in a scenario involves a holder who tries to add bitcoin to estate plan documents. The holder names bitcoin in the will. The holder names an executor. The plan now mentions digital assets.
The custody system exists separately. Keys are stored somewhere. Devices are located somewhere. Knowledge lives in the holder's memory. The estate plan does not describe these things.
The integration gap is the space between legal naming and technical access. The estate plan says bitcoin exists. The custody system determines whether anyone can reach it.
Authority Without Access
An executor named in an estate plan has legal authority. The executor can act on behalf of the estate. Courts recognize this authority. Institutions recognize this authority.
Bitcoin does not recognize legal authority. Bitcoin recognizes keys. An executor with authority but without keys cannot move bitcoin. An executor with keys but without authority faces legal problems.
When a holder decides to include bitcoin in estate plan documents, the holder creates authority. The holder does not automatically create access.
The Holder Adds Bitcoin
The system in a scenario involves a holder who wants to add bitcoin to estate plan documents. The holder speaks with an attorney. The holder updates documents. The estate plan now mentions digital assets.
The holder knows where keys are stored. The holder knows which devices matter. The holder knows how to access the bitcoin. The estate plan does not contain this knowledge.
Recovery in a scenario where the holder is absent would require the executor to bridge the gap. The executor would have authority from the estate plan. The executor would need access from somewhere else.
Naming Without Locating
An estate plan may say "I leave my bitcoin to my spouse." This names the asset. This names the recipient. This creates legal intent.
The statement does not say where the bitcoin is. It does not say how to find it. It does not say what devices or backups exist. It does not say what passwords are needed.
Bitcoin estate plan add efforts often name without locating. The asset is mentioned. The path to the asset is not described.
Legal Language and Technical Reality
Estate plans use legal language. They describe property. They assign rights. They create obligations. Attorneys understand this language. Courts interpret this language.
Bitcoin custody uses technical language. It describes keys. It describes wallets. It describes seed phrases. The legal system does not automatically translate this language.
When a holder tries to add bitcoin to estate plan documents, two languages meet. The holder knows both. The executor may know only one.
Time and the Plan
An estate plan is created at a specific moment. The holder describes assets that exist at that moment. The plan captures a snapshot.
Time changes conditions. The holder may acquire more bitcoin. The holder may change custody arrangements. The holder may move backups. The estate plan captures a moment. It does not update itself.
Adding bitcoin to estate plan documents today does not account for changes tomorrow. The plan did not change. The custody system did.
Integration as Diagnostic
The act of trying to add bitcoin to estate plan documents functions as a diagnostic. Integration reveals what the holder can name. It reveals what the holder cannot easily describe. It reveals where legal and technical systems fail to connect.
Integration exposes gaps. It shows where authority exists without access. It shows where naming exists without locating. It shows where legal intent meets technical friction.
The effort to include bitcoin in estate plan documents is a lens for seeing coordination gaps. It is not a solution for closing them.
The Confidence Gap
Updating an estate plan to add bitcoin often produces confidence. The holder has named the asset. The holder has assigned authority. The outcome is interpreted as sufficient by the holder.
This confidence reflects what the holder observed. It does not reflect what remains unobserved. The holder named bitcoin using holder knowledge. The holder did not test whether the executor can find it or access it.
A holder who decides to add bitcoin to estate plan documents has taken a coordination step. The holder has not completed the coordination.
Conclusion
When a holder decides to add bitcoin to estate plan documents, two systems meet. The estate plan provides legal authority and names assets. The custody system relies on keys, devices, and knowledge.
Legal authority does not automatically map to technical access. Estate documents may name bitcoin without describing how to find it. The executor may have authority but lack the ability to act on it.
The result of adding bitcoin to estate plan integration reflects a snapshot of coordination between legal intent and custody reality. It is a diagnostic moment that exposes gaps. It is not a guarantee that recovery will succeed.
System Context
Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress
Legal Requirements Bitcoin Inheritance
For anyone who holds Bitcoin — on an exchange, in a wallet, through a service, or in self-custody — and wants to know what happens to it if something happens to them.
Start Bitcoin Custody Stress Test$179 · 12-month access · Unlimited assessments
A structured, scenario-based diagnostic that produces reference documents for your spouse, executor, or attorney — no accounts connected, no keys shared.
Sample what the assessment produces