Bitcoin Death Scenario Planning
Modeling Custody Behavior After Owner Death
This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.
What Scenario Planning Reveals
A Bitcoin custody system works while the owner is alive. The owner accesses funds, manages devices, and remembers credentials. The system functions because the owner operates it. The question is what happens when the owner is permanently gone.
Bitcoin death scenario planning is a modeling exercise. It examines how a custody system behaves when the owner is absent—not temporarily unavailable, but permanently removed from the picture. The owner cannot answer questions. The owner cannot clarify instructions. The owner cannot remember what was forgotten. The scenario assumes complete and permanent loss of owner availability.
This is not estate planning. It is not inheritance guidance. It is a way of examining custody structure by removing the person who holds it together.
What Scenario Planning Reveals
When a custody system is modeled under a death scenario, certain things become visible that were hidden during normal operation. The owner's presence conceals gaps. The owner compensates for missing documentation. The owner remembers what was never written down. The owner knows which device holds which keys. Remove the owner, and these compensations disappear.
Bitcoin death scenario modeling asks: if this person were gone tomorrow, what would someone else need to recover the Bitcoin? The answer often reveals dependencies that normal operation never exposed. The system that seemed complete now appears fragmented. The setup that felt secure now feels opaque.
Scenario planning does not change the custody system. It does not fix problems or fill gaps. It reveals what the system actually depends on by removing the person who masks those dependencies.
The Owner as a Hidden Component
In most Bitcoin custody systems, the owner is a component—often the most critical one. The owner is not just the person who uses the system. The owner is the person who understands it, remembers it, and can explain it.
This role is usually invisible. The owner does not think of themselves as a system component. They think of themselves as the person the system serves. But functionally, the owner performs critical operations: interpreting documentation, recalling credentials, navigating software, and making decisions when something unexpected happens.
Bitcoin custody death scenario analysis removes this component. It asks what the system looks like without the interpreter, the memory, and the decision-maker. What remains is only what was externalized: written instructions, stored credentials, documented procedures. If these external artifacts are incomplete, the system becomes incomplete when the owner is gone.
Why Normal Operation Conceals Fragility
During normal operation, a custody system appears to work. The owner accesses funds successfully. Transactions complete. Backups exist in the right places. Everything functions as intended.
This appearance of functionality conceals fragility. The system works because the owner makes it work. The owner fills gaps that no one notices. The documentation says "use the hardware wallet," but the owner remembers that a passphrase is also needed. The instructions say "restore from seed phrase," but the owner knows which wallet software to use. The backup exists, but the owner knows where it is stored.
These gap-filling actions happen automatically during normal operation. The owner does not record them because they seem obvious. They are obvious—to the owner. They are invisible to everyone else.
Bitcoin death scenario planning exposes this concealed fragility by asking what happens when the gap-filler is gone. The gaps reappear. The system that seemed complete reveals its hidden dependencies.
A Scenario Where Modeling Exposes Gaps
A man holds Bitcoin in self-custody. He uses a hardware wallet with a passphrase. The seed phrase is stored in a safe deposit box. The passphrase is stored in his memory. He considers this arrangement secure.
Under bitcoin death scenario modeling, the arrangement is examined without the man present. The seed phrase can be found—it is in the safe deposit box. The hardware wallet can be found—it is in his desk. But the passphrase cannot be found. It exists only in his memory. When he is gone, the memory is gone.
The scenario reveals that the custody system has a critical dependency on the owner's memory. This dependency was invisible during normal operation because the owner was always present to supply the passphrase. Under the death scenario, the dependency becomes a gap. The Bitcoin exists. The seed phrase exists. Access does not exist.
The modeling did not cause this gap. It revealed a gap that was always there.
Legal Authority Versus Technical Access
Death creates a divergence between legal authority and technical access. The estate gains legal ownership of the Bitcoin. The executor gains legal authority to manage estate assets. Courts recognize these rights. The law is clear.
Technical access follows different rules. The Bitcoin network does not recognize executors. It does not read wills. It responds to valid cryptographic signatures. The executor may have every legal right to the Bitcoin while having no technical ability to move it.
Bitcoin custody survivability after death depends on whether legal authority can be converted into technical access. This conversion requires the same things any access requires: keys, credentials, devices, and knowledge. If these were not transferred before death, legal authority alone does not produce them.
Scenario planning surfaces this divergence. It shows where legal authority exists without corresponding technical capability. The executor is named. The access path is missing.
Undocumented Knowledge
Much of what makes a custody system work lives in the owner's head. This knowledge was never written down because it seemed unnecessary. The owner remembers it. Why document what you remember?
Under a death scenario, undocumented knowledge becomes inaccessible knowledge. The owner knew which email account was used to register the exchange. The owner knew the pattern for generating PINs. The owner knew that the "backup" device was actually the primary and the "primary" was a decoy. None of this was written down.
Bitcoin death scenario planning identifies where undocumented knowledge creates dependencies. The scenario asks: if someone else had to operate this system tomorrow, what would they need to know that is not written anywhere? The answer is often substantial. Years of accumulated context, decisions, and workarounds live only in the owner's memory.
When the owner dies, this knowledge dies too. The system continues to exist. The understanding of it does not.
Time Delays and Degradation
Death scenarios involve time. The owner dies. Time passes before anyone attempts recovery. During that time, things change.
Memory degrades. The spouse who once heard the owner mention a passphrase forgets the details. The friend who helped set up the wallet moves away. The family member who knew something useful dies too.
Documents degrade. Papers get lost in estate cleanup. Files get deleted from computers. Storage locations become inaccessible. Instructions that existed at the time of death may not exist six months later.
Technology degrades. Software becomes obsolete. Hardware fails. Services change their policies. The wallet software the owner used may not be available when the heir attempts recovery.
Bitcoin custody death scenario modeling accounts for these delays. It asks not just whether recovery is possible immediately after death, but whether recovery remains possible after the delays that death typically involves. Probate takes months. Grief takes time. The access path that existed on day one may have degraded by month six.
Hidden Assumptions About Who Can Act
Custody systems often contain hidden assumptions about who will act after the owner is gone. The owner assumes the spouse will handle recovery. The owner assumes the adult child will understand the technical details. The owner assumes the executor will know what to do.
These assumptions are rarely tested. The spouse may have no interest in Bitcoin and no ability to learn under stress. The adult child may live far away and have limited time. The executor may be a professional who has never handled cryptocurrency.
Scenario planning surfaces these assumptions by asking: who exactly will perform each step of recovery, and do they have the knowledge, access, and willingness to do so? The assumption that "someone will figure it out" often collapses when examined. No specific person has been identified. No specific person has been prepared.
Hidden Assumptions About Explanation
Owners often assume they will be available to explain. The documentation is thin because the owner planned to walk someone through it. The instructions are vague because the owner would clarify them when the time came. The setup is complex because the owner would guide the recovery.
Death removes the explainer. The documentation that assumed explanation now stands alone. The instructions that assumed clarification are now interpreted without help. The complexity that assumed guidance is now navigated by someone who cannot ask questions.
Bitcoin death scenario planning removes the assumption of explanation. It asks: can someone recover this Bitcoin using only what is written down, without asking the owner anything? If the answer is no, the scenario reveals a dependency on explanation that death eliminates.
Hidden Assumptions About Decision-Making
Custody systems sometimes require decisions that only the owner can make. Which wallet contains the main holdings? Which backup is current? Which helper can be trusted? The owner knows the answers. No one else does.
Under a death scenario, these decisions fall to someone who lacks the owner's context. The heir does not know which wallet matters. The executor does not know which backup to use. The helper does not know whether they are trusted to assist.
Decision-making gaps are harder to document than knowledge gaps. The owner may not even realize they are making decisions. The choices feel obvious because the owner has the context. Remove the context, and the choices become unclear.
Scenario planning exposes these decision points by tracing the recovery path step by step. At each point, it asks: who decides, and based on what information? If the answer is "the owner decides based on memory," the death scenario has exposed a gap.
What Scenario Planning Is Not
Bitcoin death scenario planning is not preparation for death. It is not a way to make custody systems survive death. It is not estate planning, inheritance planning, or contingency planning. It does not produce action items, recommendations, or improvements.
Scenario planning is a modeling exercise. It takes an existing custody system and examines how it behaves under a specific condition: permanent owner absence. The result is a description of behavior, not a prescription for change.
The description may reveal gaps. It may expose dependencies. It may surface assumptions that were never examined. But the description does not fix these things. It only makes them visible.
Whether anyone acts on what scenario planning reveals is a separate question. The planning itself is diagnostic. It shows what the system does, not what anyone does about it.
The Boundary of the Model
Every scenario model has boundaries. Bitcoin death scenario modeling assumes certain things and ignores others. The model examines custody structure. It does not examine grief, family dynamics, legal disputes, or the many other factors that affect recovery after death.
The model assumes the death has occurred and asks how the custody system responds. It does not predict when death will occur, how it will occur, or what circumstances will surround it. It does not account for deaths that involve foul play, contested estates, or unusual legal situations.
The boundaries matter because they define what the model can reveal. Within its boundaries, the model shows how custody structure behaves. Outside its boundaries, other factors dominate. Scenario planning is one lens, not a complete picture.
What the Result Represents
The result of bitcoin death scenario planning is a description of modeled system behavior. It shows what happens to the custody system when the owner is removed. It identifies dependencies, gaps, and assumptions that normal operation conceals.
The result does not represent preparedness. A custody system can be modeled under a death scenario without being prepared for death. The modeling reveals structure. Preparation requires action that modeling does not provide.
The result does not represent quality. A custody system that survives death scenario modeling is not necessarily a good system. It may survive because it is simple, not because it is well-designed. A system that fails modeling is not necessarily bad. It may fail because it is complex in ways that require owner involvement.
The result represents behavior under stated assumptions. It is bounded by those assumptions and limited to what the model can capture. Bitcoin custody continuity after death is one property among many that custody systems exhibit.
Conclusion
Bitcoin death scenario planning is a modeling exercise that examines how custody systems behave when the owner is permanently absent. It removes the owner from the picture and observes what remains: documented knowledge, stored credentials, written instructions, and identified helpers.
Normal operation conceals fragility because the owner fills gaps automatically. Scenario planning exposes these gaps by removing the gap-filler. The system that seemed complete may reveal hidden dependencies on undocumented knowledge, unexpressed assumptions, and decisions only the owner can make.
Death creates a divergence between legal authority and technical access. Scenario planning surfaces where this divergence exists. It also accounts for time delays that degrade memory, documents, and technology between death and attempted recovery.
The result of scenario planning is descriptive, not prescriptive. It shows how the custody system behaves under a death scenario without recommending changes or guaranteeing outcomes. The model has boundaries that define what it can reveal. Within those boundaries, bitcoin death scenario modeling makes visible what normal operation conceals.
System Context
Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress
Bitcoin Custody Overlooked Risks
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