What If Incapacity Happens First With Bitcoin

Incapacity as the First Triggering Event

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

The Holder Who Remains

Most planning for bitcoin transfer assumes death as the triggering event. The holder dies, and someone else takes over. But what if incapacity happens first? The scenario where incapacity precedes death with bitcoin creates different dynamics. The holder is still alive. They still legally own the bitcoin. But they cannot access it, explain it, or manage it. This scenario differs from death in ways that matter for everyone involved.

This memo looks at the incapacity-first scenario and how its characteristics shape outcomes. The question of what if incapacity happens first bitcoin is not merely hypothetical. Incapacity happens. It happens to people who own bitcoin. The outcomes that follow differ from death-first scenarios in structure, timing, and emotional weight.

---

The Holder Who Remains

When incapacity happens first, the holder does not disappear. They remain present—in a hospital bed, in a care facility, in their home with caregivers. Their body continues. Their legal personhood continues. Their ownership of assets continues. What ends is their ability to exercise that ownership for bitcoin they hold in self-custody.

This presence creates complications that death does not. A deceased holder is gone. Decisions can be made without them because they no longer exist. An incapacitated holder exists. Decisions involve them even when they cannot participate. The legal frameworks that govern their affairs treat them as a living person whose interests matter, even though they cannot express those interests coherently.

Family members experience this presence as a burden and a comfort simultaneously. The person they love is still alive. But the person who knew the bitcoin details is functionally absent. The holder's body sits in a room while the holder's knowledge is inaccessible. Family members navigate this split reality—caring for someone who is there while dealing with an information gap that their presence cannot fill.

The holder may have periods of lucidity. These moments offer hope that access might be recovered. A question about the seed phrase location might produce a coherent answer during a good moment. Or it might not. The unpredictability of incapacity—especially cognitive incapacity like dementia—means that useful information might emerge, or might never emerge, with no way to know which outcome will occur.

---

Legal Authority Without Technical Access

When incapacity happens first, legal authority shifts to someone else. A power of attorney may activate. A guardian or conservator may be appointed. Someone gains the legal right to manage the holder's affairs. This legal authority covers traditional assets well. It covers bitcoin poorly.

Legal authority allows the agent to contact banks and access accounts. It allows them to sell property and pay bills. Institutions recognize legal authority and respond to it. But bitcoin in self-custody is not held by an institution. The blockchain does not recognize legal authority. It recognizes cryptographic keys. Having authority to act for the holder does not provide the keys.

The agent with legal authority may search for keys and find nothing. They may find devices they cannot access. They may find documents that are incomplete. Their legal authority grants them the right to look. It does not grant them the ability to find. The gap between legal right and technical reality grows visible in the search.

Courts can grant broad powers to agents acting for incapacitated persons. They cannot grant the seed phrase. No judge can issue an order that produces information the holder never externalized. Legal processes reach their limit at the boundary of cryptographic access. The incapacity-first scenario exposes this limit clearly because the processes continue while the holder remains alive, running through their full course without reaching the bitcoin.

---

The Extended Timeline

Incapacity often extends over years. A stroke survivor may live a decade without regaining cognitive function. A dementia patient may decline slowly over five, ten, fifteen years. The incapacity-first scenario is not a single event but a prolonged state. The bitcoin question remains unresolved throughout this state.

This extended timeline differs sharply from death. Death creates urgency. Estates must be settled. Assets must be distributed. Time pressure forces decisions. Incapacity creates a different rhythm. The holder is alive, so estate processes do not apply. The bitcoin sits in limbo while caregiving dominates daily life. Years pass with no progress on access.

Family members may forget about the bitcoin during extended incapacity. Caregiving is exhausting. Financial attention goes to paying for care, managing bills, selling assets that can be sold. The bitcoin that cannot be accessed fades from immediate concern. It becomes a background problem, acknowledged but not addressed, while more pressing needs consume attention.

When the holder eventually dies, the family returns to the bitcoin question—often with less energy and fewer resources than before. The years of caregiving have depleted them. The extended incapacity has normalized the idea that the bitcoin is inaccessible. The urgency that might have driven recovery efforts earlier has dissipated into acceptance.

---

Care Costs and Frozen Assets

Incapacity often brings high costs. Nursing homes, memory care facilities, home health aides—these expenses accumulate rapidly. Families liquidate assets to pay for care. Homes are sold. Investments are cashed out. But bitcoin that cannot be accessed cannot be liquidated.

The bitcoin may represent substantial value. A holder with significant bitcoin holdings might have assets that could fund years of quality care. But if incapacity happens first and no access path exists, those assets are frozen. They exist on paper—or on the blockchain—while the family struggles to pay care bills with accessible assets only.

This creates a painful gap between total wealth and available resources. The holder may be technically wealthy while their family runs out of money for care. The bitcoin is there. It cannot be touched. The family watches the holder's quality of care decline while knowing assets exist that could prevent that decline if only access were possible.

Legal mechanisms cannot unlock this value. A guardian who attempts to use bitcoin to pay for care faces the same technical barrier that blocks everyone else. Court orders do not move bitcoin. Court orders authorize people to move bitcoin if they can. If they cannot, the authorization is meaningless. The care costs continue while the bitcoin stays frozen.

---

Decision-Making in Uncertainty

The incapacity-first scenario forces decisions under uncertainty about the holder's future. Will they recover? Will they stabilize? Will they decline further? No one knows. Decisions about the bitcoin must be made—or not made—without knowing how the holder's condition will evolve.

Some families wait. They hope the holder will have a lucid moment and reveal what is needed. They hope a treatment will restore some function. They hope that time will help rather than hurt. This hope can be reasonable, but it can also produce paralysis. Years pass while the family waits for improvement that does not come.

Other families act. They attempt recovery without the holder's input. They hire specialists. They explore technical options. They search exhaustively for documentation. This action may succeed or fail independently of whether waiting would have been better. The uncertainty means that neither approach—waiting nor acting—can be confidently called correct.

The holder's unknown wishes complicate these choices. An incapacitated holder cannot be asked what they want done with their bitcoin. They cannot consent to recovery attempts. They cannot clarify their intentions. The agent acting for them makes decisions on their behalf without knowing whether those decisions align with what the holder would have wanted. The holder's silence on the matter is permanent for as long as incapacity lasts.

---

The Emotional Weight of Presence

Incapacity-first scenarios carry emotional weight that death does not. The holder is there, alive, but unreachable. Family members visit someone who cannot explain. They hold the hand of someone who cannot remember. The grief is not the clean grief of loss but the ongoing grief of presence without connection.

This emotional context affects decisions about bitcoin. Family members may feel guilty about focusing on assets when their loved one is suffering. They may avoid discussing bitcoin because it feels materialistic or cold. The topic becomes uncomfortable, associated with the larger loss that surrounds it.

Conversely, frustration may build. The holder's failure to prepare—their postponed documentation, their undisclosed information—may generate resentment. Family members may feel abandoned by someone who knew this moment might come and did not act. These feelings coexist with love and concern, creating emotional complexity that pure grief does not have.

The bitcoin becomes entangled with the experience of incapacity itself. It represents the holder's failure to communicate, their unreachable knowledge, the gap between who they were and who they now are. Dealing with the bitcoin means dealing with incapacity, and dealing with incapacity is already one of the hardest things families do.

---

How Incapacity-First Differs from Death-First

The incapacity-first scenario differs from death-first in key structural ways. Death triggers estate processes. Incapacity triggers disability processes. Different legal frameworks apply. Different timelines operate. Different emotional registers engage.

Death is final. Incapacity is ongoing. Death moves toward resolution. Incapacity moves toward more of the same. Death allows closure. Incapacity suspends closure indefinitely. These differences affect everything from legal strategy to family dynamics to the practical question of who has authority to do what.

Death removes the holder from the story. Incapacity keeps them in the story but unable to participate. Death ends questions about what the holder wants. Incapacity leaves those questions open but unanswerable. Death allows others to move forward. Incapacity requires others to wait while also not waiting—to act as if the holder is gone while legally and emotionally treating them as present.

The bitcoin in each scenario is equally inaccessible if preparation was missing. But the paths around that inaccessibility differ. Death opens probate. Incapacity opens guardianship. Death gives executors. Incapacity gives agents and conservators. The people, the powers, and the processes differ. The underlying problem—missing access to self-custody bitcoin—remains the same. The surrounding structures are different.

---

Assessment

The question of what if incapacity happens first bitcoin describes a scenario distinct from death-first situations. The holder remains alive but cannot access, explain, or manage their bitcoin. Legal authority transfers to others who face the same technical barriers the holder would face if they were trying to act.

This scenario extends over time, often years. The bitcoin stays frozen while care costs accumulate and family attention goes elsewhere. The holder's presence complicates decisions emotionally and legally. No one can ask the holder what they want. No one can get information the holder never externalized. The waiting state becomes the permanent state.

The incapacity-first scenario does not resolve into the cleaner narrative of death. It persists as ongoing ambiguity, ongoing presence, ongoing inaccessibility. Understanding this scenario means understanding that bitcoin planning must account not only for death but for the state that often precedes it—a state where the holder exists but the holder's knowledge is already gone.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Recovery Delayed by Probate as Court-Imposed Waiting

Bitcoin Preferential Transfer

← Return to CustodyStress