Bitcoin Custody Benchmark as a Missing Reference Point

Custody Comparison Without Industry Benchmarks

This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.

What a Benchmark Requires

Someone has set up bitcoin custody and wants to know how it compares. They search for a bitcoin custody benchmark because they want a reference point. The question surfaces when a holder finishes building their system and wonders if they did it well. They look for something to compare against—a standard that tells them where their setup lands on a spectrum from weak to strong.

This memo examines why no universal benchmark exists for personal bitcoin custody. Benchmarks require agreed-upon criteria, consistent measurement methods, and shared context. These elements do not exist across the varied world of personal custody. The search for a benchmark encounters a structural absence.

---

What a Benchmark Requires

A benchmark is a standard against which things are compared. For a benchmark to work, it needs clear criteria. People comparing against the benchmark need to know what exactly they are measuring. They need to agree on how to measure it. They need to share enough context that the comparison makes sense.

Established industries have benchmarks because they have standardization. Car safety ratings work because everyone measures the same crash tests the same way. Building codes work because everyone agrees on load requirements and material specifications. These benchmarks emerge from shared definitions and testing methods.

Bitcoin custody lacks this standardization. Different setups prioritize different things. Different holders face different threats. Different contexts make different tradeoffs appropriate. Without shared criteria and measurement methods, a benchmark cannot function as a meaningful reference point.

---

The Problem of Varied Priorities

One holder cares most about protection from theft. Another cares most about inheritance. A third prioritizes easy access for frequent transactions. A fourth worries about government seizure. Each holder has different concerns driving their custody decisions.

A benchmark designed for theft protection might score a setup highly that fails at inheritance. A benchmark designed for inheritance might score a setup highly that leaves the holder vulnerable to physical theft. Different priorities lead to different evaluations of the same setup.

This variation in priorities makes a single benchmark impossible. Any benchmark embeds assumptions about what matters most. Those assumptions match some holders' situations and contradict others. A holder comparing against a benchmark with different priorities than their own gets misleading information.

---

Context Changes Everything

A holder living alone in a rural area faces different conditions than one in a dense city with family members around. A holder with technical expertise faces different conditions than one without. A holder with complex estate planning needs faces different conditions than one with simple succession.

These context differences affect what custody approaches make sense. A setup that works well in one context may work poorly in another. The same technical configuration might be strong in one situation and weak in another. Context shapes how every element of custody functions.

Benchmarks struggle with context variation. They typically assume a standard context or ignore context entirely. When the actual context differs from the assumed one, the benchmark stops providing useful information. Personal custody varies so widely in context that any single benchmark applies poorly to most situations.

Geography creates context variation. A holder in a region with political stability faces different risks than one where assets might be seized. A holder in a climate with humidity and heat faces different storage challenges than one in a dry, temperate area. These location factors affect what makes sense without appearing in generic benchmarks.

Family context also matters. A holder with trustworthy, technically capable family members faces different conditions than one whose family has neither quality. The benchmark cannot know which family situation applies. It produces the same evaluation for both, though their situations differ fundamentally.

---

Measurement Difficulties

Even if criteria were agreed upon, measuring custody setups presents challenges. Many aspects of custody cannot be easily measured. How do you quantify whether documentation is clear enough? How do you measure whether an inheritor will be able to follow instructions? How do you score whether a hardware device will still work in ten years?

Some custody elements involve future events that cannot be observed today. Will the holder remember their passphrase under stress? Will the backup location remain accessible? Will the designated helpers actually help when needed? These future-dependent factors resist current measurement.

Other custody elements involve human factors that vary unpredictably. How organized is the holder? How technically capable is their inheritor? How trustworthy is their backup person? These human elements affect whether a setup succeeds but cannot be standardized into a benchmark score.

---

The Specificity Problem

Custody setups differ in countless specific ways. One holder uses a hardware wallet from one manufacturer; another uses a different brand. One stores a seed phrase on metal; another uses paper. One keeps backups at a bank; another uses a relative's house. These specific choices multiply into enormous variety.

A benchmark attempting to account for all these specificities becomes unwieldy. A benchmark ignoring these specificities loses precision. Neither approach produces a useful comparison tool. The sheer variety of custody approaches resists reduction to a simple scale.

This specificity problem grows when considering that each specific choice interacts with others. A particular storage method works well with one hardware wallet and poorly with another. A backup location that works for one holder's situation fails for another's. The interactions between specific choices compound the difficulty of benchmark creation.

---

Published Frameworks and Their Limits

Various individuals and organizations have published custody frameworks. These frameworks offer structured ways to think about custody. They sometimes include rating systems or evaluation criteria. Holders encountering these frameworks may treat them as benchmarks.

These frameworks carry the assumptions of their creators. They prioritize what the creators thought most important. They assume contexts the creators had in mind. They measure what the creators found measurable. Other frameworks from other creators make different choices and produce different evaluations.

A holder comparing their setup against one framework gets one answer. Comparing against a different framework may give a different answer. The existence of multiple frameworks, each with its own approach, shows that no single framework has emerged as the bitcoin custody benchmark. Each represents one perspective among many.

---

The Appeal of Comparison

Holders seek benchmarks because comparison feels informative. Knowing where you stand relative to some standard offers a sense of orientation. Without comparison, evaluation becomes harder. The appeal of benchmarks is real, even when benchmarks are unavailable.

This appeal can lead holders to treat non-benchmarks as benchmarks. They may take one framework and treat it as authoritative. They may compare against what they imagine others do. They may accept marketing claims about custody quality. These substitutes for benchmarks provide comparison but may mislead.

The desire for comparison does not create a meaningful benchmark. Holders can compare their setups against various reference points, but whether those reference points apply to their situation remains uncertain. Comparison without a valid benchmark produces numbers without reliable meaning.

---

What Exists Instead of Benchmarks

In place of a universal benchmark, what exists is particular knowledge about particular setups. A holder can understand their own custody arrangement: what it contains, how it works, what it depends on, where it might fail. This understanding does not position the setup on a universal scale but does reveal its specific properties.

Threat modeling offers another alternative. Rather than asking "how does my setup compare," a holder can ask "what could go wrong with my setup." This question does not require a benchmark. It requires examining the setup itself for vulnerabilities. The answers apply specifically to that setup in that context.

Neither specific understanding nor threat modeling provides the simple comparison a benchmark would offer. They require more work and produce less tidy answers. But they engage with the actual situation rather than an absent universal standard.

---

Conclusion

A bitcoin custody benchmark would provide a reference point for comparing setups. No such universal benchmark exists. Benchmarks require agreed criteria, consistent measurement, and shared context. Personal bitcoin custody varies too widely in priorities, contexts, and specifics for a single benchmark to apply.

Published frameworks offer structured thinking but embed their creators' assumptions. Multiple frameworks with different approaches demonstrate that no single benchmark has emerged. Holders seeking comparison can use these frameworks but find that different frameworks give different evaluations.

What exists instead of benchmarks is particular knowledge about particular setups. Holders can understand their own arrangements and examine them for specific weaknesses. This approach does not provide the simple comparison a benchmark would offer, but it engages with actual properties rather than a missing universal standard.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Professional Grade Bitcoin Custody as an Undefined Standard

Bitcoin CFP Bitcoin Client Obligations

← Return to CustodyStress