Custody Delay Versus Custody Loss as Distinct Outcomes

Delayed Access Versus Permanent Loss Outcomes

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

Why the Distinction Matters

A Bitcoin holder dies. The executor searches for credentials. Nothing is found immediately. A week passes. A month passes. The Bitcoin has not moved. The question arises: Is this Bitcoin lost, or is access simply delayed?

This memo describes the difference between custody delay and custody loss. These are distinct conditions, not points on a single timeline. Delay means access is not currently available but may become available. Loss means access is permanently foreclosed. The distinction matters because decisions made during delay—how to report assets, whether to continue searching, how to characterize the estate—depend on which condition applies.

---

Why the Distinction Matters

Traditional assets signal their status. A bank account exists or it does not. A stock certificate is valid or it is not. The institution holding the asset can confirm its presence and accessibility. Bitcoin provides no such signal. A wallet address shows a balance, but nothing about the address reveals whether anyone can move those funds.

An executor finds a document listing a Bitcoin address. The address contains funds. The document does not include a seed phrase or private key. The executor does not know if the seed phrase exists somewhere undiscovered, if it was destroyed, or if it never existed. The Bitcoin is visible but not accessible. Is it delayed or lost? The blockchain does not answer this question. The executor cannot answer it either—not yet, and possibly not ever.

Describing the Bitcoin as "lost" may be premature. A seed phrase backup might surface in six months. Describing it as "recoverable" may be inaccurate. The seed phrase might have been destroyed years ago. The executor needs language that acknowledges the current state without asserting a conclusion that cannot be verified.

---

What Delay Looks Like

Custody delay occurs when access is blocked by circumstances that may change. The credentials exist but have not been found. The people who hold information have not been contacted. The processes required to access the Bitcoin have not been completed. Time and effort may resolve the blockage.

A widow knows her husband owned Bitcoin. She finds a hardware wallet but not the PIN. She finds a reference to a seed phrase but not the seed phrase itself. She has not yet searched his office at work, contacted his business partner, or opened the safe deposit box at the bank across town. Access is delayed. The path to access exists but has not been traveled.

An executor locates a seed phrase written on paper. The paper is damaged. Some words are illegible. The executor does not know if the remaining words are enough to reconstruct the phrase or if specialized recovery services could help. Access is delayed pending further investigation. The outcome is uncertain but not foreclosed.

A holder used a multisig arrangement requiring two of three keys. The executor has found one key. The location of the second key is unknown. A family member mentioned the holder's best friend might have been involved. The friend has not been contacted. Access is delayed while coordination continues.

---

What Loss Looks Like

Custody loss occurs when access is blocked by circumstances that cannot change. The credentials were destroyed. The only person who knew them is dead and left no record. The cryptographic requirements for access can never be satisfied. No amount of time or effort will produce a different result.

A holder memorized his seed phrase and never wrote it down. He told no one. He died suddenly. The seed phrase existed only in his mind. When he died, the seed phrase ceased to exist. The Bitcoin controlled by that seed phrase is permanently inaccessible. This is loss.

A holder stored her seed phrase on a piece of paper in her home. The home burned down. The paper was destroyed. No other copy existed. The seed phrase is gone. The Bitcoin is lost.

A holder created a multisig requiring three of three keys. One key was stored on a hardware wallet that was stolen and never recovered. Without that key, the threshold cannot be met. The other two keys are useless alone. The Bitcoin is lost.

---

The Space Between

Many custody situations exist in a space that is neither clearly delay nor clearly loss. The information needed for access may or may not exist. There is no way to determine which condition applies without investigation that may never produce a definitive answer.

A holder's children find a hardware wallet after his death. They do not know the PIN. They do not find a seed phrase backup. They search his home, his office, his safe deposit box. Nothing. Does the seed phrase exist somewhere they have not looked? Did he store it digitally under a filename they do not recognize? Did he give it to someone they do not know about? Or did he never create a backup, relying on the hardware wallet alone? The children cannot answer these questions. The custody status remains unresolved.

A holder mentioned to her husband that she kept her seed phrase "in the cloud." After her death, her husband searches her email, her cloud storage, her password manager. He finds nothing. "The cloud" could mean many things. It could mean a service he does not know about. It could mean she intended to store it there but never did. It could mean she was speaking loosely about something physical. The husband does not know. The custody status is indeterminate.

An executor finds instructions referencing a passphrase. The instructions say the passphrase is "the usual one." The executor does not know what "the usual one" means. It could be a phrase the holder used for many accounts—potentially discoverable by examining other records. It could be something known only to the holder. The Bitcoin is inaccessible, but whether this is delay or loss depends on information the executor does not have.

---

How Time Pressure Distorts Classification

Estate administration operates on timelines. Courts expect inventories. Tax filings have deadlines. Heirs want resolution. The pressure to classify assets as either present or absent pushes toward premature conclusions about Bitcoin that has not been accessed.

An executor faces a deadline to file an estate inventory within ninety days. The inventory requires listing assets and their values. The executor knows the deceased owned Bitcoin but has not been able to access it. How does the executor list it? As an asset with a known value? As an asset with an uncertain value? As a potential asset subject to further investigation? The form was not designed for this situation. The pressure to complete the form pushes toward a definitive statement that the facts do not support.

A probate judge asks whether the Bitcoin has been recovered. The attorney says no. The judge asks if it is lost. The attorney does not know. The judge asks for a definitive answer so the estate can proceed. The binary framing—recovered or lost—does not accommodate the actual situation, which is neither. The attorney needs to use language the court understands to describe a condition the court has no framework for.

Heirs grow impatient. Two years have passed. The Bitcoin has not been accessed. They want to know if they will ever receive it. The executor cannot say. The absence of access does not prove impossibility of access. But two years of failure does not prove eventual success either. The heirs want certainty. The executor can only offer description of the current state.

---

Why Bitcoin Provides No Native Status Signal

A bank account frozen due to a deceased owner's status is visibly frozen. The bank knows the account exists, knows the owner is dead, and can explain exactly what is required to release the funds. The account's accessibility is a known state.

A Bitcoin wallet address reveals only its balance and transaction history. It does not reveal who controls it. It does not reveal whether anyone controls it. It does not reveal whether the controlling keys exist, where they are stored, or whether they can ever be used. The blockchain records what has happened. It says nothing about what can happen.

An address holding Bitcoin for ten years without any transactions might be controlled by someone who is simply not moving funds. It might be controlled by someone who lost access years ago. It might be controlled by someone who died. The address itself is identical in all three cases. No external observer can distinguish between them by looking at the blockchain.

This is why the question "Is this Bitcoin lost?" often has no answer. The blockchain does not know. The wallet software does not know. Only the people who control the keys know—and if those people are dead or incapacitated, the knowledge may have died with them.

---

Describing Delay Without Implying Outcome

Language shapes expectations. Saying Bitcoin is "temporarily inaccessible" implies eventual access. Saying it is "potentially lost" implies probable failure. Both framings assert more than the facts support. The challenge is to describe delay accurately without forecasting resolution.

An executor writes in a report: "The estate includes Bitcoin holdings. Access to these holdings has not been established. Investigation into the location of necessary credentials is ongoing. The current status is unresolved." This language describes the situation without predicting the outcome. It acknowledges the Bitcoin exists, acknowledges access has not occurred, and acknowledges uncertainty about whether access will occur.

A trustee tells beneficiaries: "Your father's Bitcoin remains in wallets we have identified. We have not located the information needed to access these wallets. We are continuing to search. I cannot tell you whether we will succeed." This language manages expectations without making promises or conceding failure.

An attorney explains to a court: "The deceased's Bitcoin holdings are documented but not accessible. The credentials required for access have not been located despite reasonable investigation. The estate cannot currently distribute these assets. Whether this represents a temporary condition or permanent loss cannot be determined at this time." This language provides the court with accurate information without forcing a premature classification.

---

When Delay Becomes Loss

Some delays resolve into access. Others resolve into confirmed loss. The transition from delay to loss occurs when information emerges that forecloses the possibility of access—or when thorough investigation makes continued uncertainty unreasonable.

An executor spends two years searching for a seed phrase. She contacts everyone the holder knew. She searches every location he had access to. She hires professionals to examine his devices. Nothing is found. At some point, continued searching produces diminishing returns. The executor may reasonably conclude that the seed phrase does not exist in any recoverable form. Delay has transitioned to practical loss—not because proof of destruction exists, but because all reasonable avenues have been exhausted.

A family learns that the holder's seed phrase was stored on a laptop that was stolen. Police recover the laptop, but it has been wiped. The seed phrase that was on it is gone. Investigation has produced a definitive answer: the credentials were destroyed. Delay has transitioned to confirmed loss.

A holder's son discovers a letter his father wrote before dying: "I never backed up my seed phrase. If this hardware wallet fails, the Bitcoin is gone." The wallet has failed. The letter provides definitive information that no backup exists. Delay has transitioned to confirmed loss because the holder himself documented the situation.

---

When Delay Persists Indefinitely

Not all delays resolve. Some custody situations remain in an indeterminate state permanently. The credentials might exist somewhere. They might not. No one can prove either conclusion. The Bitcoin remains visible on the blockchain, inaccessible, and of uncertain status.

A holder dies with no known family. His estate is administered by a public fiduciary. Records indicate he owned Bitcoin. No credentials are found. No one knows enough about his life to guess where he might have stored them. The investigation ends due to lack of leads. The Bitcoin remains in the wallet. The status remains unresolved. It may stay that way forever.

This is not failure to classify. It is accurate classification of an indeterminate state. Some Bitcoin exists in this condition permanently—controlled by keys that may or may not exist, owned by estates that cannot access them, visible but untouchable.

---

Outcome

Custody delay and custody loss are distinct conditions. Delay means access is blocked by circumstances that may change—credentials not yet found, people not yet contacted, processes not yet completed. Loss means access is blocked by circumstances that cannot change—credentials destroyed, knowledge that died with the holder, cryptographic thresholds that can never be met.

Many custody situations exist between these states, where the facts do not support classification as either delay or loss. Bitcoin provides no native signal indicating which condition applies. The blockchain shows balances but not accessibility. Parties administering estates need language that describes intermediate states accurately—acknowledging uncertainty without asserting conclusions that cannot be verified. The distinction between delay and loss is not always knowable, but recognizing them as separate conditions allows for more accurate description of what is actually happening.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Service Changes During Delay as Third-Party Drift

Bitcoin Custody Service vs Self Custody

← Return to CustodyStress