Inheritance case for multi-institution custody

Michael Tanguma argues that self-custody as practised has become unreasonable, opening with a conversation he reports having with a bitcoin-only owner who uses a COLDCARD and Sparrow and who said that rolling dice 100 times and expecting his wife to inherit that setup is preposterous. He lists seed phrases, metal plates, firmware risk, inheritance risk, device risk and duress risk as burdens the industry pushed onto users, says self-custody still matters, and concludes that serious wealth needs multi-institution custody secured by several institutions and controlled by the client. Tanguma is a principal at Onramp Bitcoin and multi-institution custody is Onramp's product, so this is a vendor argument for the vendor's own model; the archive holds his earlier and more explicit pitch at onramp-custody-guidance. Held as a dated statement of the custody-model argument the incident revived, alongside coryswan-2085077996738941204 on the opposite side. The reported conversation and the characterisation of the industry are the poster's own and are not verified here.