Observed Custody Patterns

Reference of patterns in how Bitcoin custody setups behave under stress.

This page is a reference, not guidance. It describes patterns commonly observed when Bitcoin custody setups are subjected to stress. The patterns are not based on your specific results and do not recommend actions, changes, or decisions.

This page is often referenced to understand why a modeled result may appear the way it does, or to recognize patterns that recur across different stress scenarios. You do not need to read it all at once.

---

I. System-Level Patterns

These patterns describe overall properties of custody setups and often explain why a system is modeled to behave consistently across many different stress scenarios.

Timing of Custody Access (Liquidity Timing)

What Is Observed

Custody systems differ in when access becomes possible during disruption. Some allow immediate execution; others involve waiting, coordination, or external processes.

Under Stress

• Immediate access structures are commonly observed to exhibit earlier execution once access is initiated.
• Delayed access structures are commonly observed to exhibit later access windows.
• Timing characteristics are often less visible during normal use.

Independence of Access Paths

What Is Observed

Many systems appear to have multiple recovery paths, but those paths often rely on the same underlying elements: one person, one account, or one institution.

Under Stress

• If the shared element is unavailable, several access paths become unavailable together.
• Backup access relies on the same credentials as primary access.
• Authority to act exists, but custody access may not be initiatable.

Independence is often assumed based on appearance rather than structure.

Sensitivity to Delay

What Is Observed

Custody systems vary in how access behavior changes as time passes. Some remain stable; others become more fragile over time.

Under Stress

• Custody access remains theoretically possible but becomes harder to coordinate.
• Required information or access changes or expires.
• Participants lose context or availability.

---

II. Scenario-Based Patterns

These patterns tend to appear when specific stressful conditions disrupt normal assumptions.

Time-Based Degradation

What Is Observed

Some systems rely on elements that change over time, even when no disruptive event occurs: passwords, subscriptions, institutional policies.

Under Stress

• Access attempts reveal expired or missing elements.
• Documentation no longer reflects current conditions.

Reliance on Memory

What Is Observed

Many systems depend on information that someone is expected to remember. That information may not be fully written down or may lack context.

Under Stress

• Some access becomes possible while other access does not.
• Helpers encounter gaps that cannot be reconstructed.

Sensitivity to Device Loss

What Is Observed

Some systems assume continued access to specific devices or locations.

Under Stress

• Backups are lost along with primary devices.
• Access depends on device-based authentication.
• New devices cannot recreate prior access conditions.

Owner Death or Absence

What Is Observed

Many systems rely on the original owner to explain what exists, initiate custody access, or resolve ambiguity.

Under Stress

• Legal authority exists, but access cannot be initiated.
• Instructions lack interpretive context.
• Custody access depends on assumptions that cannot be confirmed.

Physical Coercion

What Is Observed

Some systems allow immediate access without delay.

Under Stress

• Access can be compelled under threat.
• Separation between control and execution narrows.

Legal or Institutional Restriction

What Is Observed

Legal action can block normal access paths without enabling custody access.

Under Stress

• Authority increases while custody access decreases.
• Custody access depends on institutional cooperation.
• Timelines extend without a clear resolution point.

Forced Relocation

What Is Observed

Some systems assume access will occur from a specific location or country.

Under Stress

• Physical items become unreachable.
• Location-based assumptions fail.

---

III. Common Failure-Type Patterns

These patterns describe how systems are commonly observed to fail once custody access is attempted.

Authority and Role Confusion

What Is Observed

Roles and permissions are not always clearly defined or documented.

Under Stress

• Multiple people believe they can act.
• No one can demonstrate authority clearly.
• Custody access stalls due to uncertainty.

Shared Dependencies

What Is Observed

Different recovery paths rely on the same tools, accounts, or services.

Under Stress

• Backup paths fail together.
• Redundancy is correlated rather than independent.

Human Process Dependence

What Is Observed

Some systems rely on people following specific steps correctly.

Under Stress

• Steps are skipped or reordered.
• Partial execution blocks later custody access paths.

Third-Party Dependence

What Is Observed

Some systems rely on outside services or institutions.

Under Stress

• Policies or availability change.
• Cooperation becomes conditional.

Information Availability

What Is Observed

Critical custody access information is assumed to be discoverable.

Under Stress

• Documents exist but cannot be located.
• Instructions lack context.
• Missing details prevent action.

---

IV. Pattern Overlap

Most real custody setups show multiple patterns at the same time. Common overlaps include delay combined with missing information, shared dependencies combined with human coordination, and legal authority combined with lack of access.

---

These patterns describe how custody setups are commonly observed to behave under stress. They are descriptive only and do not imply instructions, recommendations, or required changes.

← Return to Methodology