Executor Access Failure as a Role-Capability Gap

Executor Role-Capability Gap in Bitcoin Estates

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

Legal Authority Granted

A person dies. They owned bitcoin. An executor is appointed to administer the estate. The executor's job includes marshaling assets, paying debts, and distributing property to beneficiaries. The executor has legal authority to act on behalf of the estate. They discover bitcoin exists among the assets. They cannot access it.

This assessment considers how executor responsibilities exceed executor capabilities when legal authority cannot substitute for technical access. The executor has a role with defined duties. The role comes with legal powers. But the powers that work for bank accounts and real estate do not work for self-custody bitcoin.

---

Legal Authority Granted

The executor receives legal authority through the probate process. Letters testamentary or similar documents confirm their power to act for the estate. They can contact banks, access safe deposit boxes, sell property, pay bills, and handle the deceased person's affairs.

This legal authority is recognized by institutions. Banks accept the executor's authority and grant access to accounts. Brokerages transfer securities as the executor directs. Real estate can be sold or distributed. The legal framework connects to operational frameworks. The executor shows their papers, and institutions comply.

The legal authority is comprehensive for assets held through institutions. The executor can reach essentially any asset where a third party controls access and recognizes legal authority. The system is designed for this. Institutions expect to deal with executors and have processes for doing so.

The authority is genuine and powerful within its domain. The executor is not pretending to have power. They have real power, granted by courts and recognized by the legal system. The power simply does not extend to all forms of property.

---

Technical Access Missing

Bitcoin in self-custody is not held by an institution. No bank has it. No brokerage controls it. No company can be contacted to release it. The bitcoin is controlled by keys that are controlled by whoever has the seed phrase or the hardware wallet with the right PIN.

The executor's legal authority cannot compel the blockchain. There is no entity to show letters testamentary to. The blockchain is a distributed network that does not recognize legal documents. It recognizes valid cryptographic signatures. Nothing else.

To access the bitcoin, the executor needs the same technical access the deceased had: the seed phrase, the PIN, the passphrase if one was used. Without these, the executor cannot move the bitcoin regardless of their legal authority. The technical requirements do not waive for estate administration.

This is the gap. The executor has authority without capability. They are empowered to administer the bitcoin but cannot actually touch it. The role expects them to handle assets. The asset cannot be handled through the role's normal mechanisms.

---

Responsibility Without Means

The executor may be legally responsible for the bitcoin. It is an estate asset. It may need to be valued, protected, and distributed. The executor's duties apply to it as they apply to other assets. The executor could potentially be liable for mishandling it.

But the executor may have no means to fulfill these responsibilities. They cannot value bitcoin they cannot verify exists beyond the deceased's records. They cannot protect bitcoin they cannot move. They cannot distribute bitcoin they cannot access.

This creates an uncomfortable position. The executor is supposed to do something. They cannot do it. They are responsible for an outcome they cannot produce. The duties of the role exceed what the role can actually accomplish.

The executor may need to document their inability to access the asset. They may need to explain to beneficiaries that inheritance exists but cannot be delivered. They may need to involve attorneys who have no more ability to access the bitcoin than they do. The gap generates work without producing access.

---

Scenarios That Surface the Gap

An executor finds a hardware wallet among the deceased's belongings. The device requires a PIN. The executor does not know the PIN. They try obvious guesses. The device warns that it will wipe after more failed attempts. The executor stops, having found an asset they cannot access without destroying it.

An executor finds records indicating bitcoin ownership but no information about how to access it. Transaction records, tax documents, or wallet software on a computer suggest bitcoin exists. Where the keys are or how to use them is nowhere documented. The executor knows something exists but cannot reach it.

An executor contacts a bitcoin-related company hoping for help. Perhaps the deceased used a particular wallet or service. The company explains they do not hold customer funds and cannot help access self-custody bitcoin. The executor learns there is no institutional support to invoke.

An executor hires a specialist to try to recover access. The specialist may help if partial information exists—perhaps the seed phrase is found but incomplete. If nothing is found, no specialist can help. The executor spends money on the attempt without guarantee of success.

---

The Institutional Gap

Traditional estate administration assumes assets are institutionally held. Banks have the money. Brokerages have the securities. Government offices have property records. The executor's authority unlocks these institutional holdings. The system works because assets are where institutions can release them.

Self-custody bitcoin breaks this assumption. The asset is not institutionally held. No gatekeeper controls access. The cryptographic control that makes self-custody work is the same cryptographic control that excludes the executor.

The institutional gap is not a bug in the estate system; it is a feature of self-custody. The deceased chose to hold bitcoin outside institutions precisely because institutions could control access. That choice means their executor also cannot access through institutions. The feature persists after death.

The gap reveals that estate planning for self-custody bitcoin requires something beyond traditional estate planning. Legal documents alone are insufficient. Technical access must also be transferred. The two domains—legal and technical—must both be addressed.

---

What Would Close the Gap

The gap would close if the deceased had arranged technical access for the executor. This might mean leaving the seed phrase with instructions. It might mean a letter explaining where materials are stored. It might mean sharing information with the executor before death.

Without such arrangements, the gap cannot be closed from the executor's side. The executor cannot create access that does not exist. They can only use access that the deceased prepared. If the deceased did not prepare it, the executor's capabilities end at the technical barrier.

The gap might also close if the deceased used custody arrangements with institutional components. Some custody services are designed to accommodate estate transitions. These introduce third parties who can respond to legal authority. Pure self-custody, by design, has no such third parties.

The gap is ultimately the deceased's responsibility to have addressed. The executor cannot retroactively create what should have existed. They can only work with what they find. If they find nothing usable, the gap remains.

---

Outcome

Executor responsibilities exceed executor capabilities when the estate includes self-custody bitcoin. The executor has legal authority to administer assets. This authority does not translate to technical access for bitcoin held outside institutions.

The executor may have responsibility without means. They are supposed to handle the bitcoin but cannot touch it. Legal documents that unlock institutional assets do not unlock cryptographic assets. The gap between role and capability is structural.

The gap can only be closed by arrangements the deceased made before death. If the deceased left technical access information, the executor can proceed. If not, the executor cannot create access from legal authority alone. The underlying assumptions of estate administration do not apply to self-custody bitcoin.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Executor Legal Responsibilities and Access Constraints

Executor Cant Access Bitcoin Legally as a Structural Blockage

← Return to CustodyStress