What Estate Planning Documents Should Reference Crypto Holdings?

Updated July 13, 2026 7 min read

Traditional estate planning assumes a bank or brokerage will eventually notice an account holder has died and cooperate with the estate. Crypto doesn’t work that way, and that difference is exactly why estate documents need to treat it differently.

The short answer

A will or trust should identify that crypto holdings exist and name an executor or trustee with authority over them, while a separate, securely stored document should hold the actual access details — private keys, seed phrases, or platform logins — needed to reach the assets. Keeping access information out of the public probate record while still ensuring an authorized person can find it is the core balancing act.

Why crypto breaks the usual estate assumptions

When someone dies owning a bank account, the institution can generally be notified and will work with the estate through a known legal process. Crypto has no equivalent institution in the case of self-custodied holdings — there’s no company to call, no customer service line, and no way to reset a lost password. If nobody knows an asset exists, or if the person who does know dies without leaving usable access information, the crypto can become permanently unreachable. This is a much sharper version of the same problem discussed in how households can back up wallet access information safely, except in an estate context the stakes are permanent rather than merely inconvenient.

Documents that typically come into play

Why the split between “what exists” and “how to access it” matters

Putting sensitive key information directly into a will risks exposing it publicly once probate begins, since wills often become accessible court records. Keeping it entirely private, on the other hand, risks the information being lost or never found. Separating the two — a public-facing reference that assets exist, paired with a private, securely stored access mechanism — is a common way estate professionals try to solve both problems at once.

Custodial accounts versus self-custody

If crypto is held through a platform rather than in self-custody, the process can look more like a traditional account, since the platform may have its own procedure for verifying a death and transferring or liquidating the holdings for the estate. This is a similar underlying question to who controls crypto in a custodial account until adulthood, in that authority and access don’t automatically transfer just because a person is entitled to the assets. Self-custodied crypto has no such fallback, which is part of why insuring self-custodied crypto is so difficult in general — there’s no institution standing behind it if something goes wrong, including the original owner’s death.

What to weigh

The bottom line

Crypto’s lack of a central institution means the usual assumption that an asset will eventually surface during probate simply doesn’t hold. Clear references in a will or trust, paired with securely stored access details maintained separately, are what stand between crypto holdings being passed on as intended and being lost permanently when their owner dies.