When to Use a Bitcoin Custody Company

When Third-Party Custody Services Make Sense

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

How Custody Systems Grow

A custody system grows beyond what one person can explain, coordinate, or execute under stress. Inheritance, incapacity, or scale introduces third parties into the custody surface. Professional bitcoin custody appears as a question.

What follows covers when to use bitcoin custody company services becomes a relevant question. It treats custody companies as actors in stress scenarios, not as solutions to evaluate.

---

How Custody Systems Grow

Holders often begin with simple self-custody. One wallet. One backup. One person who knows where things are.

Over time, complexity increases. More Bitcoin accumulates. More wallets exist. Multisig is added. Family members become aware. Estate documents name executors. Attorneys and advisors learn the Bitcoin exists.

The system that started simple now involves multiple parties, multiple keys, and multiple dependencies. The holder still understands it. Others do not.

---

When the Question Arises

Questions about when to use bitcoin custody company services arise at specific moments. A spouse asks how they would access the Bitcoin alone. An executor reviews estate documents and asks who helps with the technical parts. A holder realizes their documentation assumes knowledge that heirs lack.

The question rarely arises during calm setup. It arises when coordination strain becomes visible. When the holder sees that the system depends on their presence. When third parties cannot execute what the holder designed.

---

Bitcoin Custody Under Stress: Coordination Saturation

Informal coordination works when few people are involved. A holder explains the system to a spouse. The spouse remembers enough. One conversation suffices.

Coordination saturates when too many participants are involved. A multisig requires three signers. An executor needs to contact each one. A spouse needs to locate documentation. An attorney needs to verify authority. A child needs to understand the technology.

Bitcoin custody under stress reveals coordination limits. When informal networks cannot hold the required participants, the system strains. The question of professional custody surfaces when coordination load exceeds what personal relationships can absorb.

---

Authority Without Access

Legal authority expands faster than technical access. An executor gains authority through probate. A spouse gains authority through power of attorney. A trustee gains authority through trust documents.

Authority does not create access. The executor still needs seed phrases. The spouse still needs passwords. The trustee still needs to understand wallet software.

Professional bitcoin custody introduces an entity that recognizes legal authority and can execute technical access. The gap between authority and access narrows when a custody company sits between legal documents and Bitcoin keys.

---

Continuity Gaps

Self-custody depends on the holder's continuity. The holder remembers. The holder explains. The holder updates documentation. The holder responds to questions.

When the holder becomes unavailable, continuity breaks. Memory is gone. Explanations stop. Documentation freezes at its last update. Questions go unanswered.

A bitcoin custody company provides an entity that persists across holder unavailability. The company remains available when the holder does not. Processes continue. Records exist. Someone answers the phone.

---

Interpretation Risk

Documentation exists but cannot be executed. A spouse finds the instructions. The instructions say "restore the wallet using the seed phrase." The spouse does not know what wallet software to use. The spouse does not know what a derivation path is. The instructions assume knowledge the spouse lacks.

Interpretation risk appears when documentation requires technical understanding that third parties do not have. The gap between written instructions and executable steps widens when readers lack context.

Bitcoin custody services inheritance processes may reduce interpretation risk by providing execution capability. The heir contacts the company. The company executes the technical steps. The heir provides legal documents, not technical knowledge.

---

Institutional Timing

Stress scenarios introduce deadlines. Medical bills arrive. Estate taxes come due. A surviving spouse needs income. Probate courts set schedules.

Informal custody operates on informal timelines. The holder gets to it when they can. Heirs figure it out eventually. No external clock governs access.

Institutional deadlines collide with informal custody. The estate needs to file in 90 days. The heir still cannot access the Bitcoin. The deadline does not wait for discovery.

A custody company operates on defined timelines. Processing takes a known period. Documentation requirements are specified. The institutional clock of the custody company may align with the institutional clocks of courts and tax authorities.

---

What Custody Companies Introduce

A bitcoin custody company introduces an entity that persists. The company exists before and after the holder. Staff changes. The company remains.

A custody company introduces defined processes. Inheritance claims follow procedures. Documentation requirements are listed. Steps have order and sequence.

A custody company introduces legibility. Courts recognize the company. Executors can contact it. Attorneys can send letters to it. The company exists in the same legal space as other estate actors.

A custody company introduces dependencies. The company becomes a required participant. The company's policies matter. The company's availability matters. The company's timeline matters.

---

Bitcoin Custody Company Inheritance: What Changes

Executors encounter a custody company as a counterparty, not a puzzle. The executor sends a death certificate. The company verifies it. The executor provides estate documents. The company processes them. The interaction follows a known pattern.

Spouses interact through third-party processes. The spouse does not decode seed phrases. The spouse does not learn wallet software. The spouse follows the company's inheritance procedure.

Delays shift from discovery problems to procedural timelines. The heir does not search for documentation. The heir waits for the company to process. The delay is known and bounded, not open-ended and uncertain.

Bitcoin custody company inheritance changes which problems heirs face. Technical discovery problems become procedural compliance problems.

---

The Threshold

Professional bitcoin custody becomes relevant when coordination load exceeds personal networks. When too many parties are involved for informal coordination. When the holder's absence would leave no one who can execute.

The threshold appears when failure risk shifts. The primary risk is no longer losing a key. The primary risk becomes human unavailability. No one can coordinate. No one can interpret. No one can execute.

When to use bitcoin custody company services depends on where failure risk concentrates. If failure risk is key loss, custody companies add dependency without addressing the risk. If failure risk is coordination failure, custody companies shift the failure surface.

---

Scenario: Coordination That Crossed the Threshold

A holder accumulates Bitcoin over eight years. The system grows. A hardware wallet becomes two hardware wallets. Single-signature becomes 2-of-3 multisig. A spouse knows the basics. A brother holds a backup key. An estate attorney has a letter of instruction. A financial advisor knows the Bitcoin exists.

The holder has a health scare. The spouse asks: "If something happens, what do I do first?" The holder begins explaining. The explanation takes two hours. The spouse takes notes. The notes fill four pages. The spouse asks follow-up questions. The holder realizes the spouse cannot execute what the holder designed.

The brother has moved and has not touched his key in three years. The estate attorney does not understand multisig. The financial advisor cannot help with technical recovery. Four people are involved. None can coordinate the others. The holder remains the only person who can make the system work.

The question of a custody company arises not because the system failed, but because the holder sees that no one else can operate it. Coordination load has exceeded what the personal network can absorb.

---

Scenario: Failed DIY Leading to Custody Company Consideration

A holder dies with Bitcoin in self-custody. The holder left documentation. The executor follows the instructions. The executor finds the hardware wallet. The executor finds the seed phrase. The executor attempts recovery.

The wallet shows a zero balance. The executor does not know a passphrase exists. The executor contacts a Bitcoin-knowledgeable friend. The friend asks about passphrases. The executor searches. No passphrase is found. The friend suggests trying common variations. None work.

Six months pass. The estate remains open. Legal fees accumulate. The executor hires a recovery service. The service charges $8,000 and fails. The executor consults another service. That service suggests the passphrase may be unrecoverable.

The surviving spouse asks: "Would this have been different with a custody company?" The answer is uncertain. A custody company would not have the passphrase either. But a custody company would have defined processes. The spouse would have contacted one entity instead of assembling strangers. The failure would have been clearer, faster, and less expensive.

The family does not recover the Bitcoin. But they remember the experience. When the surviving spouse later accumulates their own Bitcoin, they choose a custody company. The failed DIY shaped the next decision.

---

What Professionals Observe

Estate attorneys see patterns in when custody companies enter the picture. The question arises after a near-miss. A health scare. A complicated conversation with a spouse. A realization that documentation assumes knowledge no one else has.

Financial advisors see clients who built self-custody systems during accumulation. The clients understood the systems then. Years later, the clients struggle to explain them. The advisor cannot help with technical details. The advisor sees complexity that exceeds what the client can now manage or transfer.

The pattern involves a mismatch between what was built and what can be handed off. The holder designed for their own capability. Others do not share that capability. The system works for one person. It fails for everyone else.

Professionals observe that the question of custody companies rarely arises during system design. It arises when the holder confronts what happens without them. The trigger is imagining absence, not optimizing presence.

---

When Custody Companies Make Things Worse

A custody company adds a dependency. The holder now depends on the company existing, remaining solvent, maintaining compatible policies, and processing claims correctly. These dependencies are real.

If the primary failure risk is key loss, a custody company may not help. The company holds one key in a multisig. The holder still controls other keys. If those keys are lost, the company's key does not recover the Bitcoin alone. The custody company added process without addressing the failure mode.

If the holder's documentation is poor, a custody company inherits that problem. The company knows what it holds. The company does not know what the holder held elsewhere. A custody company cannot coordinate keys it does not know about. Partial involvement creates partial visibility.

If the heir cannot satisfy the company's requirements, access fails through institutional rejection rather than technical barriers. The barrier moved. It did not disappear. The heir who could not find a seed phrase now cannot produce acceptable legal documents. Different failure, same outcome.

Custody companies make things worse when they add coordination load without reducing it elsewhere. When they add dependencies without removing dependencies. When they create formal requirements that heirs cannot meet. The question is not whether to add a custody company. The question is what problem the custody company actually solves.

---

What Does Not Change

A custody company does not eliminate failure. It changes which failures remain possible.

The company may become unavailable. The company may change policies. The company may reject documentation. The company may have processing delays. The company may have requirements the heir cannot meet.

Self-custody failures involve lost keys and missing documentation. Custody company failures involve system dependencies and procedural barriers. Different failures. Not no failures.

---

Conclusion

The question of when to use bitcoin custody company services arises when coordination load exceeds informal networks. When authority expands without access. When continuity depends on one person. When interpretation requires knowledge heirs lack.

A custody company introduces persistence, process, and legibility. It also introduces dependency, timeline, and policy. The company becomes part of the stress surface.

Professional bitcoin custody does not eliminate failure. It shifts which failures are possible. The threshold for involvement appears when failure risk moves from key loss to coordination collapse. This memo describes the conditions under which that threshold becomes visible.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Executor Education and Knowledge Gaps

Bitcoin Estate Beneficiary Reporting

← Return to CustodyStress