Terms and legal context

Coinkite's published Terms of Sale

The Terms of Sale page identifies itself as version 3.3, last revised 27 November 2024. This archive has captured it since 1 August 2026 and every poll since has returned the same terms; the only change recorded is to the site-wide advisory banner above them. The relevant provisions include:

Section 22 runs its one-year period from the event that is the subject of the proceeding. This record cannot determine which event a court or arbitrator would treat as the relevant event in a particular matter. Anyone whose timing might matter should obtain legal advice rather than infer a date from this page.

What the public incident statement offers

In his 31 July statement, NVK said Coinkite would provide affected users with a written incident summary specific to their loss and transaction data it could share for a police report, insurance claim or investigation. He also said Coinkite was cooperating with on-chain investigators and any law enforcement agency that opens a case. R2 The statement does not say that it amends or waives the Terms of Sale.

Who is publicly organising claims

No court filing appears in this archive. What the captures do hold is organising: two open solicitations of affected owners, one stated litigation strategy, and the first published collection of legal opinion on whether a claim could succeed. Everyone in the table below is asking affected owners to come forward and has a business interest in their doing so. Recording what they published is not a recommendation of any of them.

Collectability is not only the claimant side's question. On 7 August the COLDCARD account, replying to a user who had told it "You are going bankrupt you corrupt morons", posted: "Very likely we won't be around, but it doesn't mean we should keep trying to give ppl the best version of the firmware we possibly can." R4 This record does not read a solvency position out of one reply.

Reporting on 2 August collected the first named legal opinion on liability, and it divides. Cris Carrascosa of ATH21 said Coinkite had "zero regulatory responsibility over the funds of the users of its products" and that any action would be "terribly difficult to push through because it will have to be proven that Cold Card could have foreseen the hack". Ana Ojeda of Blend said that while "there is no automatic right for victims to get every sat back" there is "a credible legal basis to investigate responsibility". The same report describes a Brazilian owner filing a police report and intending a complaint in Brazil. R5 This archive does not weigh those views against each other.

Who represents claimants is itself disputed. A researcher has publicly urged affected owners away from Braziel, citing a Delaware court's findings in an earlier receivership; Braziel's own posts describe that matter differently. Both sides are held here, and neither is resolved by this record. R6

Public-record limits

The one held document in which Coinkite itself refers to legal proceedings is Update on Customer Data Retention, published on its blog and dated 7 August. The post describes the standard practice it is departing from: customer records blanked automatically after 120 days, with only email address and country of residence retained, and accelerated blanking available on request at any time after delivery. It then says that because of "legal obligations arising from the security incident, including the preservation of records that may be relevant to ongoing and anticipated legal proceedings", the automated blanking process is temporarily suspended and records that would otherwise have been blanked "will be retained until further notice". Customers who do not want their data preserved are asked to confirm that by emailing Coinkite's support address, which the post gives. The company states it is "required by law to preserve records that may be relevant to legal proceedings" and that it will resume its standard practice "as soon as we are legally permitted to do so". The same text was posted by the COLDCARD account the same day. R7 The notice names no proceeding, court, regulator or counterparty, so this record cannot say what "ongoing" refers to. It is the company's account of its own obligations, not a document from a proceeding.

This archive is not a court-docket, regulator or insurance database. It has not captured a public filing, regulator statement or insurer decision about this incident as of 15 August 2026, and the organising described above is at the stage of gathering claimants rather than of a commenced proceeding. The held captures likewise record no offer of a refund of a customer's losses, device replacement or other compensation, and no statement refusing one. U8 Both are archive statuses, not findings that no private, unpublished or newly filed matter exists.

Two later items sit close to that boundary without crossing it. An owner reported on 6 August that Coinkite confirmed the cancellation of their order by email and a refund reached their account as pending, after which the devices arrived regardless: an order-handling account, not a decision about compensating a loss. R9 And a Cointelegraph post of 7 August, relayed the same day onto BitcoinTalk, reports Coinkite as saying it is working on a post-mortem rather than estimating the extent of customer losses. The underlying Bloomberg article is not held here, so what the archive has is the relay rather than the statement. R10