Custodial vs Non-Custodial Bitcoin and Survivability
Custodial Versus Non-Custodial Survivability
This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.
What Custodial Means
A Bitcoin holder chooses how to hold their Bitcoin. One option involves a third party. Another option involves direct control. The choice shapes what happens when the holder dies or becomes unable to act.
This page examines how custodial vs non custodial bitcoin models differ in control, dependency, and survivability under inheritance stress. It treats custody model as a structural variable. It does not treat either model as correct or incorrect.
The memo applies when Bitcoin is held through a third party or directly controlled by the holder. It also applies when inheritance outcomes depend on the chosen custody model. The memo explains structural differences rather than decision timing or amount thresholds.
What Custodial Means
Custodial Bitcoin is held by a third party on behalf of the owner. An exchange holds the Bitcoin. A broker holds the Bitcoin. A platform holds the Bitcoin. The owner has an account. The owner does not hold the keys.
In custodial models, the third party controls access. The owner logs in to see a balance. The owner requests transactions. The third party executes those transactions. The keys that move the Bitcoin belong to the third party, not the owner.
Custodial bitcoin inheritance depends on the third party recognizing the heir. The heir must work with the institution. The heir must satisfy the institution's requirements. The institution decides whether to grant access based on its own policies.
What Non-Custodial Means
Non-custodial Bitcoin is held directly by the owner. The owner has the keys. The owner controls the wallet. No third party sits between the owner and the Bitcoin. The owner is fully responsible for access.
In non custodial bitcoin custody, the owner controls everything. The owner creates transactions. The owner signs transactions. The owner broadcasts transactions. No permission is needed from anyone else. No institution can block or grant access.
Non-custodial inheritance depends on transferring keys or knowledge to the heir. The heir must find the seed phrase or private keys. The heir must understand how to use them. No institution will help. No account exists to recover.
Custodial vs Non Custodial Bitcoin: Control
The custodial vs non custodial bitcoin distinction begins with control. Who can move the Bitcoin? Who decides when transactions happen? Who has the final say?
In custodial models, control sits with the institution. The owner has conditional access. The owner can use the account as long as the institution allows. The institution can freeze accounts. The institution can require verification. The institution sets the rules.
In non-custodial models, control sits with whoever holds the keys. The owner has unconditional access as long as the keys exist. No one can freeze access. No one can require verification. The keys are the rules.
This difference in control shapes inheritance. Custodial inheritance requires convincing the institution. Non-custodial inheritance requires possessing the keys. Two different paths. Two different challenges.
Bitcoin Custody Model Comparison: Dependencies
A bitcoin custody model comparison reveals different dependencies. Each model depends on different things to function. Each model can fail when its dependencies fail.
Custodial models depend on the institution. The institution must exist. The institution must remain solvent. The institution must honor its obligations. The institution must have policies that allow inheritance. If any of these fail, access can fail.
Non-custodial models depend on the holder. The holder must protect the keys. The holder must remember or record how to use them. The holder must make them available to heirs. If any of these fail, access can fail.
The dependencies differ in character. Custodial dependencies are institutional. Non-custodial dependencies are personal. Institutional failures affect many people at once. Personal failures affect only one holder's heirs.
Observed Pattern: Custodial Access Control
Custodial models centralize access control in an institution. The institution has procedures. The institution has policies. The institution has staff who make decisions. Access flows through these structures.
This centralization creates predictability during normal operation. The owner logs in. The owner sees the balance. The owner makes requests. The system works in familiar ways. The institution handles complexity behind the scenes.
This centralization creates uncertainty during inheritance. The heir must engage the institution. The heir must provide what the institution requires. The institution decides the timeline. The institution decides what counts as proof. The heir waits for institutional decisions.
Custodial bitcoin inheritance can succeed when institutions cooperate. The heir provides documents. The institution verifies authority. The institution releases funds. The process may be slow but can work if the institution functions properly.
Observed Pattern: Non-Custodial Responsibility
Non-custodial models place full access responsibility on the holder. The holder stores the keys. The holder protects the keys. The holder decides who else knows about them. No institution shares this burden.
This responsibility creates direct control during normal operation. The holder acts without permission. The holder faces no delays. The holder answers to no one. The Bitcoin moves when the holder wants it to move.
This responsibility creates risk during inheritance. The heir must find what the holder prepared. The heir must understand what the holder knew. If the holder prepared well, inheritance can work. If the holder did not prepare, inheritance fails.
Non custodial bitcoin custody succeeds at inheritance when knowledge transfers. The heir finds the seed phrase. The heir understands how to use it. The heir restores the wallet. The process can be fast if all pieces exist and are findable.
Observed Pattern: Different Inheritance Experiences
Inheritance experiences differ sharply between the two models. Heirs face different challenges. Heirs follow different paths. Heirs encounter different obstacles.
Custodial heirs deal with institutions. They fill out forms. They provide death certificates. They prove identity. They wait for responses. They follow the institution's process. The institution controls the pace.
Non-custodial heirs deal with cryptography. They search for seed phrases. They figure out wallet software. They learn how keys work. They execute technical steps. They control the pace if they have what they need.
Both experiences can succeed. Both experiences can fail. The paths differ but the stakes are the same. The heir either accesses the Bitcoin or does not.
Failure Dynamics: Custodial Blockages
Custodial systems may block recovery due to policy, delay, or account closure. The institution has rules. The rules may not accommodate every inheritance situation. The heir may find the institution unhelpful.
Policy blockages occur when rules exclude the heir. The heir cannot provide required documents. The heir does not meet verification standards. The institution's policy does not recognize the heir's authority. Access is denied through process, not malice.
Delay blockages occur when institutions move slowly. Legal review takes time. Compliance checks take time. Verification procedures take time. The heir waits while the institution works through its procedures.
Closure blockages occur when institutions cease to exist. Exchanges fail. Platforms shut down. Companies go bankrupt. If the institution closes before inheritance completes, the heir may face complex legal recovery or total loss.
Failure Dynamics: Non-Custodial Loss
Non-custodial systems may fail when keys or knowledge are lost with the holder. The holder had everything needed for access. The holder did not transfer that capability. The heir faces a locked system with no one to appeal to.
Key loss occurs when the seed phrase or private keys cannot be found. The holder stored them somewhere. The heir does not know where. The heir searches but finds nothing. The keys are gone and so is access.
Knowledge loss occurs when the heir does not understand what they find. The heir has a piece of paper with words on it. The heir does not know these are seed phrase words. The heir does not know what to do with them. The keys exist but cannot be used.
Non-custodial failure is often permanent. There is no institution to appeal to. There is no customer service. There is no recovery process. The Bitcoin sits on the blockchain forever, controlled by keys no one possesses.
Failure Dynamics: Tradeoffs
The result often reflects a tradeoff between third-party dependence and personal responsibility. Neither model eliminates failure. Each model shifts where failure can occur.
Custodial models trade personal responsibility for third-party dependence. The holder does not need to manage keys. The holder does need the institution to function and cooperate. Failure modes involve institutional behavior.
Non-custodial models trade third-party dependence for personal responsibility. The holder does not need any institution. The holder does need to manage keys and prepare for inheritance. Failure modes involve personal preparation.
This tradeoff has no correct answer. Some holders accept third-party dependence to avoid personal responsibility. Some holders accept personal responsibility to avoid third-party dependence. The tradeoff is real either way.
What the Custody Model Does Not Change
The custody model does not change what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin remains Bitcoin. The blockchain works the same way. Transactions require valid signatures. These fundamentals persist regardless of how the Bitcoin is held.
The custody model does not change what inheritance requires legally. Probate applies or does not apply. Authority must be established. Legal processes follow their own logic regardless of how the Bitcoin was held.
The custody model does not eliminate risk. Custodial models have institutional risks. Non-custodial models have personal risks. Choosing a model means choosing which risks to accept, not choosing to have no risks.
The custody model does not guarantee outcomes. Custodial inheritance can fail. Non-custodial inheritance can fail. Success depends on circumstances, preparation, and factors beyond the model itself.
Custodial vs Non Custodial Bitcoin: Survivability
The custodial vs non custodial bitcoin comparison shapes survivability differently. Survivability depends on different factors in each model. Each model creates different conditions for success.
Custodial survivability depends on institutional behavior. Will the institution recognize the heir? Will the institution release funds? Will the institution still exist? The heir's success depends on answers to these questions.
Non-custodial survivability depends on preparation and discovery. Did the holder prepare? Can the heir find what was prepared? Can the heir use what they find? The heir's success depends on answers to these questions.
Neither model automatically survives better. A well-prepared non-custodial system may survive better than a custodial account at a troubled institution. A custodial account at a stable institution may survive better than a poorly prepared non-custodial system. The model sets conditions but does not determine outcomes.
What Does Not Change
This memo does not state which model is correct. Different holders have different circumstances. Different heirs have different capabilities. What works for one situation may not work for another.
This memo does not predict which model will succeed in any specific case. Outcomes depend on factors beyond model choice. Preparation, luck, timing, and circumstance all play roles.
This memo does not promise that either model will produce successful inheritance. Both models can fail. Both models have failure patterns. Understanding the models does not prevent failures.
Legal authority does not change the fundamental differences. A court can declare an heir. The custodial institution still has its policies. The non-custodial keys still need to be found. Authority confirms rights but does not eliminate the challenges each model creates.
Outcome
This memo describes how custodial vs non custodial bitcoin models differ in control, dependency, and survivability under inheritance stress. Custodial models centralize control in an institution. Non-custodial models place control with the key holder.
A bitcoin custody model comparison shows different dependencies. Custodial models depend on institutions existing and cooperating. Non-custodial models depend on holders preparing and heirs finding. Each dependency creates different failure possibilities.
Custodial systems may block recovery through policy, delay, or closure. Non-custodial systems may fail through lost keys or missing knowledge. The result reflects a tradeoff between third-party dependence and personal responsibility.
This memo examines how custody models shape modeled survivability under stress. It remains descriptive of structural differences without evaluating which model is correct or preferable.
System Context
Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress
Bitcoin Inheritance Behavior After Wallet Migration
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