Test Bitcoin Estate Plan

Testing Estate Plan Viability for Bitcoin

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

What Estate Plan Testing Would Require

The desire to test bitcoin estate plan arrangements arises from reasonable concern. A plan exists on paper. Will it actually work? Traditional product testing involves using the product under conditions similar to real use. Estate plan testing faces a fundamental obstacle: the conditions of real use include death, grief, legal process, and time pressure. These conditions cannot be replicated while the holder lives. Efforts to test bitcoin estate plan arrangements encounter this barrier repeatedly.

This analysis covers how estate plan testing attempts fall short of the conditions that matter. The testing that is possible differs from the testing that would be meaningful. What can be checked provides limited assurance about what cannot be checked.

---

What Estate Plan Testing Would Require

A true test of an estate plan would involve executing the plan as it would execute after death. The holder would be unavailable. Heirs would discover the plan. Legal processes would proceed. Access would be attempted using only what the deceased left behind. Success or failure would be observed.

This test is impossible while the holder lives. The holder cannot actually be dead for testing purposes. Their existence changes everything about how a test proceeds. Any simulation of their absence is known by all participants to be a simulation. The psychological, legal, and practical realities of actual death cannot be staged.

Legal processes cannot be simulated meaningfully. Probate does not occur until someone dies. Courts do not issue letters testamentary for living people. The legal framework that governs estate administration activates only upon actual death. Testing cannot invoke this framework.

Grief cannot be simulated. Test participants know no one has died. They may take the test seriously, but they are not experiencing loss. Their cognitive state, emotional capacity, and motivation all differ from what they would experience during actual estate administration after a real death.

---

What Testing Can Check

Certain components of an estate plan can be tested independently. Technical components can be verified—seed phrases restore correctly, hardware wallets function, multi-signature configurations work as designed. These tests confirm that the tools function. They do not confirm that the plan as a whole succeeds.

Documentation can be reviewed for clarity. Someone unfamiliar with the custody arrangement can attempt to follow the instructions and identify where they become confused. This reveals documentation gaps, though the reviewer is not grieving and knows help is available if they get stuck.

Heirs can demonstrate understanding of their roles. They can explain what they would do, where they would look, and how they would proceed. Stated understanding provides some information, though stated understanding during a test may not match actual capability during crisis.

Physical components can be verified to exist and be accessible. Backups are in the documented locations. Safe deposit boxes can be opened by designated parties. The materials the plan references actually exist where the plan says they are. This is useful but limited—existence today does not guarantee existence or accessibility when actually needed.

---

The Holder's Presence Problem

While the holder lives, their presence shapes any testing. They are available to answer questions, even if the test rules say they should not be asked. Participants know the holder could intervene if testing goes badly wrong. This knowledge affects behavior in ways that actual absence would not.

The holder's presence means errors are not permanent. If a test participant makes a mistake, the holder knows the correct answer. If something goes wrong, the holder can recover the situation. Real estate plan execution involves errors that cannot be corrected because no one knows the right answer anymore.

The holder observing a test provides information through their reactions. A concerned look when someone heads the wrong direction. Relief when someone finds the right path. These signals guide testers without anyone intending to provide guidance. Actual execution includes no such feedback.

Even physical absence of the holder during a test does not create psychological absence. Testers know the holder is somewhere, alive, reachable in an emergency. They cannot truly simulate a world where the holder no longer exists. The test occurs in a world that still includes the holder, fundamentally different from the world the estate plan addresses.

---

Legal Process Gaps

Estate plans interact with legal processes that testing cannot invoke. Probate proceedings determine who has authority to act. Estate tax filings establish values and create obligations. Creditor claims may affect asset distribution. None of this occurs during a test.

Authority to access assets may depend on legal documents that only become valid upon death. A trust that controls bitcoin may grant trustee powers only upon the grantor's death. Testing whether the trustee can access the bitcoin cannot fully test this without the death event that activates their authority.

Time pressures from legal processes do not exist during testing. Estate administration has deadlines—inventory filings, tax returns, distribution requirements. Testing occurs without these deadlines. The leisurely pace of a test differs from the pressured timeline of actual administration.

Institutional interactions during actual estate administration differ from testing scenarios. Banks require death certificates. Courts require hearings. Attorneys manage procedures. None of these institutional actors participate in estate plan testing. The friction they introduce is absent from tests but present during actual execution.

---

Interpersonal Dynamics

Estate plan testing occurs while family dynamics are in their normal state. The holder is alive. Relationships have their current configuration. No one is processing loss or dealing with inheritance implications. Family members interact as they do in ordinary life.

Actual estate plan execution occurs during a family crisis. Someone has died. Grief affects everyone differently. Relationships may be strained. Old conflicts may resurface. New conflicts may emerge around inheritance. The family system during actual execution may function very differently than during testing.

Multiple heirs may cooperate smoothly during a test but compete during actual inheritance. Testing does not reveal how family members will behave when real money is at stake and emotions are raw. The collaborative testing exercise may not predict the competitive or conflict-laden actual execution.

Helpers available during testing may not be available during actual execution. The tech-savvy nephew who helped during the test may be estranged from the family by the time the holder dies. The attorney who assisted with testing may have retired. Support networks shift in ways testing cannot anticipate.

---

Temporal Disconnection

Testing happens at one time. Actual execution happens at an unknown future time. The gap between testing and execution may be years or decades. Conditions change across this gap in ways that testing cannot capture.

Technical systems evolve. The wallet software used during testing may not exist when actual access is needed. The hardware wallet model may be discontinued. The file formats may have changed. Testing confirms the plan works with current technology, not with future technology.

People change over time. Heirs age, move, change relationships, and change capabilities. Someone who participated effectively in testing at age 40 may be quite different at age 65 when actual execution is needed. Testing reveals current capability, not future capability.

The plan itself may change. The holder may update their arrangements after testing. New accounts may be added. New heirs may be designated. If testing is not repeated after changes, the tested plan no longer matches the current plan. Test results become stale without the holder or others recognizing it.

---

The Stakes Gap

Testing has low stakes. Nothing real is lost if the test fails. The holder remains alive. The bitcoin remains accessible to them. A failed test is a learning opportunity, not a catastrophe. This changes how participants approach the exercise.

Actual estate plan execution has irreversible stakes. If something goes wrong, the holder cannot fix it. If access fails, it may fail permanently. If mistakes are made, real value may be lost forever. These stakes affect behavior in ways that low-stakes testing cannot capture.

Participants may not take testing as seriously as they would take actual execution. A test is an exercise. Actual execution is real. The attention, care, and persistence applied to each differ. Success in a test may not predict success under real stakes.

Creating real stakes in a test requires risking real assets. This is generally unacceptable—the point of testing is to identify problems without incurring losses. But avoiding real stakes means the test differs fundamentally from actual execution where stakes are unavoidably real.

---

What Testing Can Offer

Despite fundamental limitations, testing offers some value. It surfaces obvious problems. Documentation that no one can follow is revealed as inadequate. Technical components that do not work are identified before they are needed. Misunderstandings among heirs become visible.

Testing creates conversations that might not otherwise happen. The holder discusses their plans with heirs. Heirs ask questions. Information transfers that might have been postponed or avoided occur because the testing exercise creates a context for them.

Testing establishes a baseline of preparation. Participants have thought through the process at least once. They have some familiarity with what would be involved. This baseline is better than no preparation, even if it falls far short of comprehensive readiness.

The act of designing a test forces the holder to think through execution from the heirs' perspective. What would they need to know? Where would they start? What might confuse them? This perspective-taking may improve the plan even if the test itself has limited validity.

---

Summary

Efforts to test bitcoin estate plan arrangements encounter the fundamental problem that estate plan execution requires conditions that cannot be created during the holder's lifetime. Death, grief, legal process, and time pressure shape actual execution. Testing cannot simulate these conditions meaningfully.

The holder's presence changes testing dynamics. Legal processes do not activate during tests. Family dynamics during testing differ from dynamics during actual inheritance. Temporal gaps between testing and execution mean tested conditions may not match future conditions. Low stakes during testing affect participant behavior differently than real stakes during actual execution.

Testing can check technical components, surface documentation problems, and create useful conversations. It cannot validate that the estate plan will work when actually needed. Understanding this limitation positions testing appropriately—as a partial input rather than comprehensive validation.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Reviewing Bitcoin Inheritance Arrangements

Checking a Bitcoin Inheritance Plan

← Return to CustodyStress