Bitcoin Emergency Access Document

Emergency Access Versus Inheritance Documentation

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

Emergency Scenarios

Emergency access differs from inheritance access. A bitcoin emergency access document addresses what happens if the holder is hospitalized today, incapacitated suddenly, or otherwise unable to manage their bitcoin temporarily. This break-glass scenario differs from planned death and estate settlement. The holder may recover; the need is immediate; the circumstances are crisis-driven rather than planned.

Inheritance documentation assumes the holder is gone and not returning. Emergency documentation assumes the holder may return and addresses the interim period. Different assumptions lead to different content, different access triggers, and different considerations about what actions are appropriate.

---

Emergency Scenarios

Emergencies take many forms. Each creates different needs and different time horizons. Understanding the range of emergency scenarios clarifies what emergency documentation addresses.

Medical emergencies create sudden incapacity. A car accident, heart attack, or stroke can render someone unable to manage their affairs within minutes. The holder may recover—fully or partially—but cannot act during the acute phase. Someone else may need to handle time-sensitive matters.

Extended hospitalization removes the holder from daily management. Even without incapacity, being hospitalized for weeks limits what the holder can do. Bills may need paying. Security may need monitoring. Practical matters may require attention the holder cannot provide from a hospital bed.

Mental health crises create periods of impaired judgment. Someone experiencing severe depression, psychosis, or other mental health challenges may need others to safeguard assets during the crisis period. The holder will likely recover but cannot be trusted to make good decisions during the acute episode.

Detention or isolation scenarios remove access. Legal trouble, travel emergencies, or other circumstances may cut the holder off from their normal ability to manage bitcoin. Access from the holder's side is blocked; someone else needs capability to act.

---

Temporary Versus Permanent Need

Emergency access is temporary. The holder is expected to resume control. This expectation shapes what emergency documentation provides and what actions it contemplates.

Security preservation may matter more than transaction capability. During emergency, the priority may be keeping bitcoin safe rather than moving it. Someone with emergency access might monitor for problems, secure physical devices, or contact relevant parties—without needing to actually transact.

Limited scope may be appropriate. Full inheritance documentation enables complete transfer of control. Emergency documentation might enable only specific actions—paying certain bills, maintaining certain security practices—while reserving broader control for the holder's return.

Recovery handoff differs from inheritance distribution. When the holder recovers, they resume control. The emergency accessor returns whatever materials or access they had. This handoff does not exist in inheritance scenarios where the holder never returns.

Reversibility considerations affect action choices. Actions taken during emergency may be difficult or impossible to reverse. Someone with emergency access faces questions about what actions are appropriate given the temporary nature of their role and the possibility that the holder would have chosen differently.

---

Access Triggers

When does emergency access activate? The trigger mechanism determines who can access what and under what circumstances. Different triggers have different properties.

Immediate availability means access is always possible. Materials are in known locations, accessible to designated people. No activation event is required. This approach provides fastest access but offers least protection against premature or unauthorized use.

Communication-based triggers require the holder's explicit authorization. The holder contacts the designated person and activates their access. This requires the holder to be able to communicate, which some emergencies prevent. Communication-based triggers may fail exactly when emergency access is most needed.

Condition-based triggers activate when certain conditions occur. Hospitalization confirmed by specific evidence, incapacity determined by specific parties, or absence exceeding a specific duration might trigger access. These triggers add verification but also add delay and potential for dispute about whether conditions are met.

Dead man's switch approaches release access after prolonged holder inactivity. If the holder fails to check in by a certain time, access activates. These mechanisms work even when the holder cannot communicate but may trigger inappropriately if the holder simply forgot to check in.

---

Who Has Emergency Access

Designating emergency accessors involves trust decisions similar to but distinct from inheritance decisions. The emergency accessor needs to be trusted during crisis but may not be the same person who would inherit.

Spouses or partners often have emergency access by default circumstance. They share living space, may already know locations of materials, and have immediate presence during emergencies. Their emergency role may be implicit even without formal designation.

Geographic proximity matters for emergency access. Someone who can physically reach materials quickly serves emergency needs better than someone far away. The best inheritance beneficiary may not be the best emergency accessor if they live in another city.

Capability alignment affects emergency effectiveness. Does the designated accessor actually know how to do anything useful with access? Technical capability to act on emergency access matters more than it might for inheritance, where time allows for learning or hiring help.

Multiple people may have different emergency roles. One person might monitor, another might have transaction capability, a third might coordinate with professionals. Distributing emergency responsibilities among multiple people can provide checks while ensuring coverage.

---

What Emergency Documentation Contains

Emergency documentation contains what someone needs to handle crisis situations without necessarily containing everything needed for full control transfer.

Existence confirmation and overview orient the emergency accessor. What bitcoin exists? Approximately how much? What is the general structure of custody? This overview enables informed decision-making about priorities and urgency.

Location information enables finding materials. Where are hardware wallets, seed phrase backups, related documents? The emergency accessor needs to know where things are to secure them, even if they do not need to use them immediately.

Contact information identifies who can help. Which professionals know about the bitcoin? Who can be called for assistance? Contacts—attorneys, accountants, technical advisors—provide resources the emergency accessor may need.

Immediate priority guidance suggests what matters most. What needs protecting first? What bills might need paying? What security practices need maintaining? Priority guidance helps the accessor focus during crisis when attention is limited.

Escalation paths indicate what to do if basic measures prove insufficient. If the situation worsens, what additional steps exist? Who else might need to be involved? Escalation guidance helps the accessor navigate situations that exceed initial expectations.

---

Security Versus Access Tradeoffs

Emergency documentation creates security exposure. Materials that enable emergency access also enable theft or misuse. The same tension that exists for inheritance documentation exists in heightened form for emergency documentation.

Immediate accessibility increases vulnerability. Documentation that can be accessed quickly by the designated person can potentially be accessed by others. Security measures that protect against unauthorized access may slow authorized emergency access.

Verification mechanisms add friction. Requiring verification that the accessor is who they claim to be, or that emergency conditions actually exist, adds steps that slow emergency response. These steps protect against premature access but may matter critically when time is short.

Scope limitation reduces exposure. Emergency documentation that enables limited actions exposes less than documentation enabling full control. The accessor who can monitor but not transact poses less risk than the accessor with complete capability.

Trust assessment underlies all design choices. How much do you trust the designated accessor? Higher trust may justify broader access with fewer safeguards. Lower trust may justify tighter restrictions even at cost of emergency responsiveness.

---

Relationship to Other Documentation

Emergency documentation relates to but differs from other custody documentation. Understanding these relationships clarifies what emergency documentation specifically contributes.

Living reference documentation provides ongoing awareness. Emergency documentation provides crisis capability. The spouse who understands the custody setup through living reference may also have emergency access documentation—but these are different documents serving different purposes.

Inheritance documentation addresses permanent transfer. Emergency documentation addresses temporary crisis. Some information overlaps, but the framing, scope, and intended use differ. A holder might have both: emergency documentation for temporary incapacity, inheritance documentation for death.

Legal documents like powers of attorney grant legal authority. Emergency access documentation provides practical capability. Having legal authority to act (from POA) differs from having practical ability to act (from technical access information). Both may be needed; neither substitutes for the other.

Document coordination prevents conflicts. If multiple documents exist, do they align? Does the emergency accessor have the legal authority their access implies? Do inheritance plans assume emergency documentation exists or operate independently? Coordination ensures documents work together rather than at cross purposes.

---

Testing Emergency Access

Emergency documentation that has never been tested may fail when needed. Testing validates that documentation actually enables what it claims to enable.

Tabletop exercises walk through scenarios verbally. The holder and designated accessor discuss what would happen in various emergencies. Where would you go first? What would you do? These discussions reveal gaps in documentation or understanding without actually executing anything.

Partial tests verify specific elements. Can the accessor find the documentation? Do they know where materials are stored? Are contact numbers current? Testing components individually confirms each works without requiring full emergency simulation.

Full drills simulate actual emergency response. The accessor attempts to execute emergency procedures as they would in a real crisis. Full drills are most realistic but also most disruptive and potentially risky if something goes wrong.

Regular testing catches decay. Documentation that worked last year may not work today. Contact information changes, locations change, circumstances change. Periodic retesting—perhaps annually—confirms emergency documentation remains valid.

---

Outcome

A bitcoin emergency access document addresses break-glass situations: the holder hospitalized today, incapacitated suddenly, or otherwise temporarily unable to manage their bitcoin. This differs from inheritance documentation, which assumes permanent transfer. Emergency access is temporary, with the expectation that the holder will resume control.

Emergency scenarios include medical emergencies, extended hospitalization, mental health crises, and detention or isolation. Access triggers range from immediate availability to condition-based activation. Designated accessors need trust, proximity, and capability—which may differ from inheritance beneficiary selection.

Emergency documentation contains existence confirmation, location information, contacts, priority guidance, and escalation paths. Security versus access tradeoffs create tension between rapid response and protection against misuse. Testing validates that documentation actually works. Emergency documentation relates to but differs from living reference, inheritance documentation, and legal instruments like powers of attorney.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Custody Competing Claims as an Ownership Dispute Pattern

Bitcoin Custody During Divorce

← Return to CustodyStress