Bitcoin Power of Attorney Digital Assets

Power of Attorney Language for Digital Assets

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

General POA Language Limitations

Powers of attorney grant agents authority to act on the principal's behalf. When a bitcoin power of attorney for digital assets is needed, questions arise about whether standard POA language covers cryptocurrency. Agents acting under general powers of attorney may find their authority ambiguous when it comes to bitcoin, creating uncertainty during moments when clarity matters most.

POAs become relevant during incapacity—exactly when the principal cannot clarify ambiguities. An agent uncertain whether their authority extends to bitcoin may hesitate to act, potentially leaving bitcoin unmanaged during the principal's incapacity. Alternatively, an agent who acts despite uncertainty faces risk if their authority is later challenged.

---

General POA Language Limitations

Traditional POA documents use categories like "financial accounts," "investments," and "personal property." Whether these categories include bitcoin depends on interpretation. The drafters of older POA forms did not contemplate cryptocurrency when choosing their language.

Financial account authority typically contemplates bank and brokerage accounts. Self-custody bitcoin is not a financial account in the traditional sense—no institution holds it. Authority over "accounts" may or may not extend to assets held without an account.

Investment authority may or may not encompass cryptocurrency. Courts have not uniformly decided whether bitcoin constitutes an investment, currency, property, or something else. POA authority over "investments" carries this same ambiguity.

Personal property categories potentially include bitcoin as intangible property. But the breadth of "personal property" also raises questions—does authority over personal property include authority to access keys, generate transactions, or modify custody arrangements? The category may cover ownership without clearly covering the specific actions bitcoin management requires.

---

Digital Asset-Specific Language

Some POA documents explicitly address digital assets. This language may appear in state-specific statutory forms, attorney-drafted documents, or addenda to traditional POAs. The presence or absence of such language affects whether the agent's bitcoin authority is clear.

State law varies in recognizing digital asset authority. Some states have enacted statutes specifically addressing fiduciary access to digital assets. These statutes may provide default rules or require specific language to grant digital asset authority. What a particular state's law provides affects what POA language accomplishes.

Definition breadth affects what is covered. "Digital assets" may be defined broadly to include any electronically stored information, narrowly to cover specific asset types, or somewhere between. Whether a particular definition includes self-custody bitcoin depends on how the definition is worded.

Action scope matters alongside asset scope. Covering bitcoin as an asset category differs from authorizing specific actions: accessing wallets, signing transactions, modifying custody arrangements, engaging custody services. Language that grants authority over "digital assets" without specifying permitted actions leaves questions about what the agent can actually do.

---

Practical Access Versus Legal Authority

POA authority is legal authority. Acting on bitcoin requires both legal authority and practical access. These are independent requirements that the POA document addresses differently.

Legal authority comes from the document. The POA grants permission to act on the principal's behalf. Without proper authority, the agent's actions may be unauthorized—potentially constituting theft or breach of fiduciary duty regardless of good intentions.

Practical access comes from custody information. The agent needs seed phrases, PINs, passwords, and instructions—none of which appear in the POA document itself. Legal authority without practical access leaves the agent empowered but unable to act. Practical access without legal authority makes action legally problematic.

Bridging authority and access requires additional arrangements. The POA grants authority; separate documentation or communication must provide access. Whether the principal made these arrangements affects whether the agent can actually act. A POA covering bitcoin provides little practical value if the agent cannot access the bitcoin it covers.

---

Third-Party Acceptance

POAs derive power partly from third-party acceptance. Banks honor POAs by granting agents access to accounts. Brokerages accept POAs by executing agent instructions. For self-custody bitcoin, no third party exists to accept or reject the POA—but institutional touchpoints may still require POA authority.

Exchanges and custodians have their own acceptance policies. An agent attempting to access exchange-held bitcoin using a POA faces the exchange's requirements for authority documentation. Exchanges may accept standard POAs, require specific language, or impose additional verification. Their policies—not just the POA language—determine whether they will act on agent instructions.

Service providers may have varying standards. Custody services, wallet providers, and other companies the principal used may have different POA acceptance policies. An agent may need to satisfy multiple different requirements from multiple different companies, each interpreting the POA according to their own policies.

Self-custody bypasses third-party acceptance but requires direct access. If the agent has the seed phrase, no institution stands between them and the bitcoin. The POA matters for legal authorization, not for practical execution. However, this directness also means no institutional safeguards prevent unauthorized action.

---

Scope and Limitation Questions

POA documents may limit agent authority in ways that affect bitcoin management. Understanding what limitations apply helps assess what actions fall within versus outside the agent's authority.

Transaction limits may or may not apply to bitcoin. POAs sometimes limit transaction sizes or require multiple signatures for large transactions. How these limits apply to bitcoin transactions—if they apply—depends on document interpretation. Moving bitcoin from one wallet to another may or may not constitute a "transaction" the limit covers.

Investment restrictions may affect bitcoin. Some POAs restrict investment types or strategies. If the agent's authority excludes speculative investments, does holding bitcoin violate that restriction? The question may not have a clear answer, creating risk for agents who maintain bitcoin positions.

Purpose limitations may narrow permissible actions. POAs granted for specific purposes—managing affairs during a trip, handling a particular transaction—may not extend to ongoing bitcoin management. Whether the POA's purpose encompasses bitcoin custody depends on how that purpose is stated.

---

Durability and Incapacity Provisions

POAs may terminate at the principal's incapacity unless drafted to survive it. Durable POAs explicitly continue despite incapacity. Non-durable POAs terminate exactly when they become most needed. This distinction has acute importance for bitcoin, which may need management during incapacity.

Springing POAs activate upon incapacity. These documents grant no authority until triggered, then take full effect. The triggering mechanism—typically a physician's determination—affects when the agent can act. For bitcoin, the delay between incapacity and POA activation leaves a gap during which no one has clear authority.

Incapacity determination may not be immediate. While waiting for medical determinations, bitcoin sits unmanaged. Market volatility during this gap affects value. Security maintenance during the gap affects protection. The principal cannot act; the agent cannot yet act. This limbo creates risk.

Termination upon death ends POA authority. When the principal dies, the POA terminates. Authority over bitcoin then passes to the executor or administrator of the estate—a different person with different authority derived from different sources. The transition from POA authority to estate authority may leave gaps.

---

Agent Capability Considerations

POAs designate who has authority without addressing whether they have capability. For bitcoin, technical capability to exercise authority matters independently of legal authority to exercise it.

Named agents may lack cryptocurrency knowledge. The person appointed as agent—often a family member or trusted friend—may have no experience with bitcoin. Their legal authority to act coexists with practical inability to act. Authority alone does not create capability.

Successor agents face the same capability questions. If the primary agent cannot serve, successors take over. These successors may be even less familiar with cryptocurrency than the primary agent. The POA structure that works for traditional assets may fail for bitcoin if successors cannot manage what they are authorized to manage.

Agent delegation may or may not be permitted. If the agent lacks capability, can they hire someone who has it? Whether the POA permits delegation to specialists affects whether capability gaps can be bridged. Documents that prohibit delegation trap agents between authority and inability.

---

Coordination With Other Documents

POAs exist alongside other estate planning documents. How they coordinate—or fail to—affects bitcoin management continuity across different life stages and circumstances.

Trust documents may overlap with POA authority. If bitcoin is held in trust, the trustee may have management authority that overlaps with or supersedes POA authority. Which document governs depends on how the bitcoin is titled and what each document says.

Healthcare directives do not typically address assets but may affect decision-making capacity determinations. The determination that triggers a springing POA may connect to healthcare determinations. Coordination between documents helps ensure consistent triggering.

Estate plans should address the transition from POA authority to estate authority at death. What happens to bitcoin between death and executor appointment? The gap between POA termination and estate administration beginning may leave bitcoin unmanaged. Coordinated planning addresses transitions that individual documents do not.

---

Summary

Whether a bitcoin power of attorney for digital assets provides clear authority depends on document language, state law, and practical considerations. General POA language may leave bitcoin coverage ambiguous. Specific digital asset language can clarify but varies in definition breadth and action scope.

Legal authority and practical access are independent requirements. The POA provides authority; separate arrangements must provide access. Third-party acceptance matters for institutional touchpoints. Limitations, durability provisions, and agent capability all affect whether POA authority translates to effective bitcoin management.

POAs coordinate with other planning documents but may leave gaps at transitions. The uncertainty inherent in ambiguous POA language creates risk during incapacity—exactly when clear authority matters most. Principals who hold bitcoin face questions about whether their existing POA documents actually cover their cryptocurrency.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Power of Attorney Requirements

Bitcoin Settlement Agreement Execution

← Return to CustodyStress