Danger Framing Without Scenario Context

Risk Conditions in Self-Custody Arrangements

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

Custody System Unchanged

A person holds bitcoin in self-custody. They ask: when is self-custody dangerous? The question seeks a condition, a threshold, a point where custody shifts from acceptable to dangerous. The person wants to know where the danger line is so they can stay on the right side of it.

This memo looks at how danger is sought as a point-in-time condition rather than a scenario-bound outcome. Danger in self-custody is not a static state that can be declared present or absent. It emerges from specific scenarios interacting with specific custody arrangements. Asking when custody is dangerous ignores the scenario dependence that actually determines risk.

---

Custody System Unchanged

The person's custody system is the same as it was yesterday, last week, last month. Nothing has changed about the arrangement. The same wallet holds the same bitcoin with the same backup in the same location. The custody system is static.

The question about when custody becomes dangerous implies that something could change to make it dangerous. But if the custody system is unchanged, what would change? The amount of bitcoin might change. External circumstances might change. The person's life situation might change. The custody system itself sits still while everything else moves.

This static nature makes "when" a strange question. The custody system does not have a clock that ticks toward danger. It does not accumulate risk over time in a measurable way. It exists in a state that either works or fails when tested. The when is not about the system but about the scenarios it might encounter.

The question treats danger as something the custody system could become. The reality is that the custody system was whatever it was from the start. Danger depends on what happens to it, not on what it becomes internally.

---

Danger Treated as Static State

The question frames danger as a state: custody is dangerous or custody is not dangerous. This framing suggests danger is a property of the custody system that can be assessed, like whether a building is structurally sound or whether a car is roadworthy.

But danger in custody is not a property of the system alone. It emerges from the interaction between the system and events. A custody arrangement might handle normal circumstances fine but fail under stress. Another arrangement might be robust against common threats but vulnerable to unusual ones.

Treating danger as a static state misses this interaction. The question asks "when is custody dangerous" as if there is a point where the system itself becomes dangerous. The system does not change. What changes is the context: the scenarios that might occur, the threats that might emerge, the tests that might arise.

The static framing leads to a search for answers that cannot be found. The person wants to know if their custody is dangerous right now. The answer depends on what happens next, which is unknown.

---

Scenario Dependence Ignored

Danger in custody depends on scenarios. The same custody arrangement can be adequate against some scenarios and inadequate against others. A hardware wallet stored at home handles normal use fine. That same wallet might be vulnerable if the home is burglarized. The scenario determines whether the arrangement is dangerous.

Scenarios include device failure, backup loss, physical theft, memory failure, inheritance needs, coercion, natural disaster, and many more. Each scenario tests the custody arrangement differently. The arrangement might pass some tests and fail others.

Asking when custody is dangerous without specifying a scenario is like asking when a ship is unsafe without specifying the waters. A ship might be fine for calm seas and dangerous in a storm. The answer depends on conditions that must be specified.

The question ignores this dependence because the person wants a general answer. They want to know if their custody is dangerous, full stop. The accurate answer requires asking: dangerous against what scenarios? The general answer the person seeks does not exist because danger is always relative to something.

---

Scenarios That Trigger the Question

A person has held bitcoin in self-custody without issue. Time passes. The person begins to wonder if their situation is actually fine or if they have just been lucky. They ask when custody becomes dangerous as a way of checking whether they have crossed some line without knowing it.

A person's holdings grow in value. At lower values, self-custody felt manageable. At higher values, the person feels more exposed. They ask when custody becomes dangerous because the emotional weight has changed even though the custody system has not.

A person reads about custody failures: lost keys, forgotten passphrases, thefts. Each story is a scenario they had not considered. They ask when custody becomes dangerous as a way of asking whether these scenarios apply to them.

A person's life changes: health issues, family changes, geographic moves. The custody arrangement was set up under old circumstances. They ask when custody becomes dangerous because they sense their situation might have changed in relevant ways they have not fully considered.

---

What Makes Custody Dangerous

Custody becomes dangerous when the arrangement cannot handle scenarios that actually occur. If the backup is lost and the device fails, custody was dangerous against that combination of events. If the person becomes incapacitated and no one can access the bitcoin, custody was dangerous against that scenario.

Danger is revealed by failure. Before failure, danger exists as potential. The custody arrangement has vulnerabilities, but whether those vulnerabilities matter depends on what happens. A vulnerability that is never tested is not actually dangerous in any realized sense.

This means danger cannot be fully assessed in advance. The person can identify vulnerabilities and address them. But they cannot know which scenarios will actually occur. They can reduce danger by building robustness against likely scenarios. They cannot eliminate danger because unlikely scenarios might still happen.

The question "when is custody dangerous" seeks a point of certainty. The honest answer is that danger exists whenever a scenario could occur that the custody arrangement cannot survive. Since such scenarios always exist, some level of danger is always present.

---

Reframing Danger Descriptively

Instead of asking when custody is dangerous, the person might ask: what scenarios could defeat my custody arrangement? This reframing acknowledges scenario dependence. It moves from a binary question (dangerous or not) to an exploratory question (vulnerable to what).

The reframed question can be answered. The person can think through scenarios: what if the device fails, what if I lose the backup, what if I forget my passphrase, what if I die suddenly, what if I need to flee my home. Each scenario tests the custody arrangement differently.

For each scenario, the person can assess whether their arrangement handles it. Some scenarios they may have addressed. Others may represent vulnerabilities. The assessment is specific rather than general. The answers are actionable rather than abstract.

The shift from "when is custody dangerous" to "what scenarios threaten my custody" transforms an unanswerable question into a productive exercise. The danger does not become less real, but it becomes more understandable and addressable.

---

Living With Conditional Danger

Danger in custody is conditional. It depends on what happens. Since what happens is uncertain, danger cannot be fully eliminated or definitively assessed. The person must live with this conditionality.

Living with conditional danger means accepting that the custody arrangement may face tests. Some tests it will pass. Some tests it might fail. The person can improve the arrangement to handle more scenarios, but they cannot make it invulnerable to all possibilities.

This acceptance is uncomfortable. The person wants to know if they are safe. The honest answer is that safety depends on what happens, and what happens is unknown. The person is as safe as their custody arrangement against scenarios that actually occur, whatever those turn out to be.

The question about when custody is dangerous reflects a desire to escape this conditionality. The person wants unconditional safety or at least unconditional knowledge about danger. Self-custody does not offer this. It offers contingent safety that depends on circumstances that unfold over time.

---

Outcome

The question of when self-custody becomes dangerous seeks a point-in-time condition rather than recognizing danger as a scenario-bound outcome. The custody system does not change state from safe to dangerous on its own. Danger emerges from the interaction between the system and events that test it.

Danger depends on scenarios. The same custody arrangement can be adequate against some scenarios and vulnerable to others. Asking when custody is dangerous without specifying scenarios cannot be meaningfully answered. The question ignores the scenario dependence that actually determines risk.

Reframing the question from "when is custody dangerous" to "what scenarios could defeat my custody" makes it answerable and actionable. Danger in custody is conditional and cannot be fully eliminated. The person must live with uncertainty about which scenarios will actually occur while building robustness against likely ones.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Single Sig Good Enough Bitcoin

Not Confident in My Bitcoin Setup

← Return to CustodyStress