R06Collision Lab

When the owner remembers less than the wallet requires

SupportedUpdated 2026-09-06

A recovery plan can be perfectly encrypted and still fail because the person who understands it changes. Dementia does not wait for a clean handoff. Financial judgment, memory and vulnerability can shift gradually while legal ownership remains in place.

The short answer

Capacity-aware custody separates ownership, transaction authority, recovery knowledge and oversight. It defines observable triggers before crisis, uses lawful documents created while capacity exists, and avoids giving one helper both invisible control and no accountability. Multisignature can help, but only when its human process is rehearsed.

Original GapLimit object

The capacity-trigger map

The model keeps ownership, action, recovery and oversight distinct. A real plan needs local legal and clinical advice.

01
OwnerIntent and beneficial ownership
02
Transaction helperSupports routine execution
03
Recovery guardianCannot spend alone
04
Independent reviewChecks triggers and abuse

Capacity is not a switch

The National Institute on Aging urges early legal and financial planning because cognitive symptoms can eventually make clear decisions difficult. A person may manage routine spending while struggling with an unfamiliar recovery flow. Custody design should respond to specific tasks, not casually declare a person capable or incapable in every domain.

Four powers, not one key

The beneficial owner, the person able to initiate a payment, the people who can reconstruct recovery and the person monitoring unusual activity need not be identical. Separating them can reduce one-point failure. It can also create deadlock, coercion and privacy loss if roles are vague.

Triggers must be human-readable

A plan can name events that cause review: repeated failed access, unusual transfers, a clinical diagnosis, activation of a durable power of attorney, or a jointly agreed assessment. The trigger should start a documented process; it should not silently hand an asset to whoever notices first.

Multisig is governance

A two-of-three wallet may let the owner transact with one helper while a third key protects recovery. That neat diagram hides hard questions: who selects signers, replaces a lost key, resolves disagreement, updates software and documents inheritance? The signature policy is the easy part. The institution around it is the product.

Thesis audit

Pressure the bridge

Causal bridge: Progressive cognitive change → unreliable solo operation → pre-authorized shared process → new governance and abuse risks.
Counterforce: Professional custody with conventional legal authority may be safer and simpler than a family-operated cryptographic arrangement.
What would prove it wrong?: The multisignature design thesis weakens when the household cannot rehearse recovery, maintain independent signers or obtain lawful authority before capacity changes.
Largest uncertainty: Capacity and financial law are jurisdiction-specific and fact-specific. This is a design framework, not medical or legal advice.

Source ledger

Evidence carrying this piece

Sources accessed 2026-09-06. Links point to the originating institution where available.

Follow the thread

The idea does not end at the room

Read the evidenceEnergy, electricity and emissions

Separate measured demand, grid effects and emissions before extending the thesis.

Return to the humanFirst Block

Test the system against custody, recovery and the person operating it.

Enter the modelWhat if?

Make the assumption adjustable and keep it distinct from the record.