Protecting Bitcoin from Elder Financial Abuse: Trust Structures, Warning Signs, and Estate Planning Safeguards in 2026

Margaret Henderson kept her Bitcoin on a Coldcard in the bedroom safe. Thirty bitcoin, accumulated between 2017 and 2021, representing the majority of her late husband's estate. She was 78, sharp enough to manage her own affairs, and fiercely independent.

Then the phone calls started. A polite young man from "Coinbase security" explaining that her wallet had been compromised. He needed remote access to her computer to "verify the integrity" of her holdings. Margaret, who had always relied on her husband for the technical side of Bitcoin, didn't know that Coinbase has no visibility into self-custodied wallets. She didn't know that no legitimate company calls customers unsolicited about hardware wallet security.

She was three keystrokes away from transferring her entire stack to an address she didn't control.

Margaret's story, which we'll return to later in this article, ended well. Many don't. And the numbers behind elder crypto exploitation are staggering enough to demand serious attention from every family with aging Bitcoin holders.

The Scale of Elder Crypto Exploitation

The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) reported $3.4 billion in cryptocurrency fraud losses for victims aged 60 and older in their most recent annual report — a figure growing at roughly 50% year over year. That number captures only reported incidents. The actual figure is almost certainly higher, given that elder financial abuse is chronically underreported: the National Center on Elder Abuse estimates that only 1 in 44 cases of financial exploitation is ever reported to authorities.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) places total elder financial abuse — across all asset classes — at $28.3 billion annually. Cryptocurrency-specific losses now represent a rapidly growing share of that total, driven by the same demographic trend that should encourage every Bitcoin-holding family to plan: the first generation of significant Bitcoin holders is aging.

Consider the timeline. Someone who bought Bitcoin in 2013 at age 60 is now 73. Early adopters from 2010-2012 who were in their mid-50s are now approaching or past 70. The Bitcoin wealth that was accumulated by technically sophisticated people in their prime is now held by those same people as they enter the years of greatest vulnerability to cognitive decline, social isolation, and exploitation.

This isn't a problem that solves itself with time. As Bitcoin's value appreciates and its holder base ages, the intersection of substantial digital wealth and age-related vulnerability will only expand. The question isn't whether your family will face this risk. It's whether you'll have structures in place when you do.

Why Bitcoin Holders Are Especially Vulnerable

Traditional financial assets carry built-in protections that most people take for granted. Banks flag unusual transactions. Brokerages have compliance departments. Credit card companies reverse fraudulent charges. Wire transfers can sometimes be recalled within hours. These aren't perfect systems, but they create friction that slows exploitation and gives victims or their families time to intervene.

Bitcoin has none of this. And for aging holders, that design choice — which is a feature for sovereignty — becomes a vulnerability vector.

Irreversible Transactions

Once a Bitcoin transaction receives even a single confirmation, it cannot be reversed by any authority, institution, or legal process on earth. There is no "undo" button. A 78-year-old who is socially engineered into signing a transaction has the same recourse as someone who throws cash into the ocean: none. The transaction settles in minutes, and the Bitcoin is gone.

No Institutional Safety Net

Self-custody — the practice of holding your own private keys rather than trusting an exchange or custodian — means there is no bank fraud department to call, no compliance officer monitoring for suspicious activity, no automatic holds on large or unusual transfers. The same property that makes Bitcoin resistant to government seizure also makes it resistant to protection.

Social Engineering Targets Isolation

Elderly individuals are disproportionately isolated — living alone after a spouse's death, less connected to daily social networks, more reliant on phone and internet communication. Social engineering attacks exploit this isolation precisely. The scammer who calls pretending to be "wallet support" is counting on the fact that the victim has no one nearby to say, "Hang up. That's not real."

Technical Complexity Creates Dependency

Even technically proficient holders may lose confidence with hardware wallets, firmware updates, and transaction verification as cognitive function gradually declines. This creates dependency on whoever offers to help — whether that's a legitimate family member, a hired caregiver who notices the hardware wallet, or a scammer who presents themselves as technical support.

The combination of these factors makes elderly Bitcoin holders uniquely vulnerable compared to elderly holders of traditional assets. The comprehensive estate planning that every significant holder needs becomes even more urgent when the holder is aging and the assets are irreversible.

The Five Types of Elder Bitcoin Exploitation

Understanding how exploitation happens is the first step toward preventing it. Elder Bitcoin exploitation falls into five distinct categories, each requiring different protective strategies.

1. Romance Scams and Pig Butchering

The scammer befriends the victim — typically through social media, dating apps, or even church communities — and over weeks or months builds a relationship of trust and emotional dependency. Once trust is established, the scammer introduces a "Bitcoin investment opportunity" and guides the victim through transferring BTC to addresses the scammer controls. The term "pig butchering" (from the Chinese sha zhu pan) refers to the patient fattening of the relationship before the slaughter.

For elderly Bitcoin holders, these scams are particularly effective because the victim already holds Bitcoin and understands the basic mechanics of transferring it. The scammer doesn't need to explain what Bitcoin is — they only need to provide a destination address and a convincing reason.

2. Tech Support Scams

Fake wallet support, fake exchange customer service, fake "security alerts" about compromised accounts. The scammer gains remote access to the victim's computer via screen-sharing software and either directly initiates transactions or captures seed phrases and private keys displayed on screen. These scams exploit the genuine complexity of Bitcoin custody and the fact that many elderly holders have questions they wish they could ask someone.

3. Family Member Exploitation

This is the most painful category and one of the most common. An adult child, grandchild, or other family member gains access to the elder's private keys or seed phrase — sometimes through legitimate estate planning conversations, sometimes through snooping — and gradually or suddenly drains the Bitcoin holdings. The exploitation is often masked as "helping manage" the elder's finances.

Family exploitation is complicated by the power of attorney structures that families create with good intentions. A financial power of attorney that grants broad authority over "digital assets" can become a license to steal if the agent is untrustworthy.

4. Caregiver Theft

In-home aides, nursing assistants, and professional caregivers who discover hardware wallets, written seed phrases, or exchange credentials during the course of their duties. Unlike traditional financial theft (which requires navigating bank systems), Bitcoin theft from a discovered seed phrase requires only a smartphone and five minutes of privacy. The caregiver copies 24 words onto their phone, and the entire balance can be swept days or weeks later when the theft is harder to trace back.

5. Power of Attorney Abuse

A legally appointed agent under a durable power of attorney uses their authority to transfer Bitcoin to themselves or to accomplices. Because the POA grants legal authority, these transfers may appear legitimate on their face, making detection and prosecution more difficult. The incapacity planning frameworks designed to protect the elder can become weapons when the wrong person holds the authority.

Trust Structures as the Primary Defense

The single most effective protection against elder Bitcoin exploitation is removing the Bitcoin from the elder's direct control before exploitation occurs. Not because the elder can't be trusted with their own assets — but because you can't be coerced into sending what you don't hold.

This is the fundamental insight: an irrevocable trust holding Bitcoin creates a structural barrier that no amount of social engineering can overcome. If the elder doesn't have the ability to unilaterally move the Bitcoin, then the romance scammer, the fake tech support agent, the exploitative family member, and the dishonest caregiver all hit the same wall: the Bitcoin isn't the elder's to move.

How the Irrevocable Trust Works

The elder (as grantor) transfers Bitcoin into an irrevocable trust. Once transferred, the Bitcoin is owned by the trust, not the individual. The trust document specifies who can authorize transactions, under what conditions, and with what oversight. The elder can remain a beneficiary — receiving distributions for health, education, maintenance, and support — without holding the keys to move the underlying Bitcoin.

Under the current 2026 federal estate tax framework, each person has a $15 million lifetime exemption. For married couples, that's $30 million in combined exemption that can shelter Bitcoin transferred to irrevocable trusts from future estate tax. The annual gift exclusion of $19,000 per recipient (2026) allows additional tax-free transfers. For families with significant Bitcoin holdings, the estate planning benefits of irrevocable trusts align perfectly with the protective benefits.

The Trust Protector as Circuit Breaker

Every trust holding Bitcoin should include a trust protector — an independent third party with specific, limited powers to intervene when circumstances change. In the context of elder protection, the trust protector serves as a circuit breaker: they can pause distributions, replace a trustee who is acting improperly, modify administrative provisions, or add additional safeguards if the elder's vulnerability increases.

The trust protector doesn't manage the Bitcoin day-to-day. They watch. They hold authority in reserve. And when something goes wrong — a trustee begins making suspicious transfers, a beneficiary reports feeling pressured, or cognitive decline accelerates beyond what the original trust provisions anticipated — the trust protector can act immediately without going to court.

Co-Trustee Requirements for Large Transactions

The trust document can require that any Bitcoin transaction above a specified threshold (say, 1 BTC or a dollar-equivalent amount) requires approval from two or more co-trustees. This builds human-layer multisig into the legal structure itself. A single compromised or corrupted trustee cannot drain the trust — they need the agreement of at least one other fiduciary.

This layered approach — irrevocable trust ownership, trust protector oversight, and co-trustee transaction approval — creates the kind of redundant protection that Bitcoin's irreversibility demands. No single point of failure. No single person who can be pressured, deceived, or corrupted into authorizing a devastating transfer.

The Cooling-Off Mechanism

One of the most powerful provisions a trust can include for elder protection is a mandatory cooling-off period for Bitcoin transfers above a defined threshold. The concept is simple: any outbound Bitcoin transaction exceeding a specified amount triggers a mandatory 48-to-72-hour delay during which the trustee must independently verify the purpose, destination, and legitimacy of the transfer.

Why does this matter? Because virtually every social engineering attack relies on urgency. The scammer creates a crisis: "Your wallet has been compromised — we need to move the funds now." "This investment opportunity closes in 24 hours." "The IRS is about to seize your Bitcoin — transfer it to this secure wallet immediately." The cooling-off period neutralizes urgency. It forces a pause that no scammer can overcome, because the delay is structural, not optional.

Implementation in Practice

The trust document specifies:

• Threshold: Any Bitcoin transfer exceeding 0.5 BTC (or an equivalent dollar amount, adjusted annually for appreciation)
• Delay period: 72 hours from the initial transfer request
• Verification requirement: During the delay, the trustee must independently contact the beneficiary (not using contact information provided in the transfer request) to confirm the transaction's purpose
• Override authority: The trust protector can waive the delay for genuine emergencies, but must document the basis for the waiver

This single provision would have prevented the vast majority of social engineering losses reported in the FBI's IC3 data. Scammers cannot sustain the illusion of urgency across a 72-hour independently-verified delay. The lie collapses under scrutiny that the cooling-off period guarantees.

Multisig as Abuse Prevention

If trust structures are the legal layer of protection, multisig is the technical layer. And when both layers are properly implemented together, the result is a protection framework that is extraordinarily difficult to defeat.

The 2-of-3 Elder Protection Configuration

The most common multisig configuration for elder protection is 2-of-3:

• Key 1: Held by the elder (or the elder's designated representative)
• Key 2: Held by a trusted family member (typically the person most likely to notice unusual behavior)
• Key 3: Held by the trust's attorney, a professional fiduciary, or a qualified custodian

Any two of the three keys are required to authorize a transaction. This means:

• The elder alone cannot be coerced into moving funds — they need at least one other keyholder's cooperation
• A single family member cannot exploit the elder alone — they need either the elder's willing participation or the attorney's cooperation
• The attorney or fiduciary cannot act unilaterally — they need agreement from the elder or the family member
• Even if two parties collude, the third party can raise alarms and initiate legal action before funds are fully dissipated

This configuration maps cleanly onto the trust structure: the trust document specifies that Bitcoin held in the trust must be secured by multisig, with keyholders aligned to the trust's governance structure. The legal and technical layers reinforce each other.

When Self-Custody Becomes a Liability

There's a difficult conversation embedded in every elder protection plan: the moment when full self-custody — the thing that made Bitcoin's value proposition so compelling — becomes a liability rather than a strength. A spendthrift trust can hold Bitcoin in a way that preserves the elder's beneficial interest while removing the direct custody risk.

This isn't about paternalism. It's about recognizing that the same cognitive decline that makes an elder vulnerable to exploitation also makes them less capable of the operational security that self-custody demands — verifying addresses character by character, recognizing phishing attempts, maintaining hardware wallet firmware, and resisting social engineering.

The Trusted Contact Model

FINRA Rule 4512 requires broker-dealers to request a "trusted contact" from account holders — a person the firm can reach out to if it detects signs of exploitation or diminished capacity. The trusted contact has no authority over the account. They cannot make trades, withdraw funds, or direct activity. They simply get a phone call when something looks wrong.

This model can be adapted for Bitcoin holders through both legal and technical mechanisms.

Legal Trusted Contact

The trust document designates one or more trusted contacts who must be notified of any Bitcoin transaction above a specified threshold. Notification is automatic and cannot be suppressed by the trustee. The trusted contact has no authority to block or approve transactions — their role is pure oversight. But the knowledge that transactions trigger notifications creates a powerful deterrent against both internal and external exploitation.

Technical Trusted Contact

For Bitcoin held on exchanges or through institutional custodians, the trusted contact can be implemented technically: automated email or SMS alerts when withdrawals are initiated, when addresses are added to whitelists, or when security settings are changed. Several major exchanges now support this functionality, and it should be enabled for every elderly account holder.

The trusted contact model works because it adds visibility without adding friction. The elder retains their sense of autonomy and control. The trusted contact simply watches — and their watching alone prevents a significant category of exploitation that depends on secrecy.

Technology Solutions

Beyond trust structures and multisig, several technology tools can add additional protective layers for elderly Bitcoin holders.

Address Whitelisting

Most major exchanges and some custody platforms allow users to create a whitelist of approved withdrawal addresses. Once enabled, Bitcoin can only be sent to pre-approved addresses. Adding a new address to the whitelist typically requires multi-factor authentication and a waiting period. For elderly holders who primarily make distributions to known family members or regular payees, whitelisting dramatically reduces the attack surface.

Daily Withdrawal Limits

Configurable daily withdrawal limits cap the amount of Bitcoin that can leave a custody platform within a 24-hour period. Even if an attacker gains access to the account, the limit constrains the damage and provides time for detection and response. For an elder whose regular Bitcoin needs might be 0.1 BTC per month, a daily limit of 0.05 BTC ensures that a full drain would take weeks — providing multiple opportunities for intervention.

Geographic and Device Restrictions

Limiting account access to known devices and geographic locations adds another layer. If the elder lives in Portland, Oregon, and a login attempt originates from Lagos, Nigeria, the system blocks it automatically. Device restrictions ensure that only registered hardware (the elder's laptop, the elder's phone) can access custody platforms.

Transaction Monitoring

On-chain monitoring services can alert designated contacts when Bitcoin moves from watched addresses. These services operate independently of any custody platform and provide visibility into self-custodied assets that would otherwise be invisible to family members and advisors.

Legal Remedies After Exploitation

Prevention is everything in Bitcoin elder exploitation, because the legal remedies available after the fact are profoundly limited by Bitcoin's irreversibility. But they exist, and families should understand them.

State Elder Abuse Statutes

Every U.S. state has statutes specifically addressing elder financial abuse. Most classify financial exploitation of an elder (typically defined as age 60 or 65+) as a felony, with penalties including imprisonment and restitution. Adult Protective Services (APS) in every state accepts reports of suspected elder financial exploitation and has investigative authority.

Civil Recovery

Victims or their families can pursue civil lawsuits under state financial exploitation laws, common-law conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty (if the exploiter was a trustee, agent, or caregiver). Some states provide enhanced damages — treble damages or attorneys' fees — for proven elder financial exploitation.

Criminal Restitution

In criminal proceedings, courts can order restitution from convicted exploiters. But restitution requires the defendant to have assets to satisfy the judgment. If the stolen Bitcoin has been laundered, converted to fiat and spent, or moved to inaccessible foreign wallets, a restitution order is a piece of paper with no practical enforcement mechanism.

The Recovery Problem

Here's the hard truth: in the vast majority of elder Bitcoin exploitation cases, the Bitcoin is not recovered. Law enforcement agencies, even those with sophisticated blockchain analytics capabilities, face enormous challenges tracing and seizing stolen Bitcoin — particularly when it's been routed through mixers, cross-chain swaps, or foreign exchanges with no U.S. law enforcement cooperation.

The FBI's IC3 recovery rate for cryptocurrency fraud is not publicly disaggregated by victim age, but overall cryptocurrency recovery rates remain in the single digits. For elder victims specifically, the combination of delayed reporting (many elders don't realize they've been exploited for weeks or months), sophisticated laundering, and cross-jurisdictional complexity makes recovery even less likely.

This is why every conversation about elder Bitcoin protection must start with prevention, not remediation. By the time you're talking to law enforcement, the battle is almost certainly already lost.

The Cognitive Decline Planning Timeline

Cognitive decline is not binary. It's not a switch that flips from "fully competent" to "incapacitated." It's a gradual process, often spanning years or decades, during which a person's capacity to manage complex financial affairs diminishes incrementally. The incapacity planning framework for Bitcoin holders should reflect this reality.

Phase 1: Full Self-Custody (Fully Competent)

The holder manages their own keys, signs their own transactions, and maintains their own operational security. This phase should still include foundational protections: a properly drafted trust, designated trusted contacts, and a documented succession plan. The structures exist but are largely dormant.

Phase 2: Shared Custody (Early Signs of Decline)

Triggered by: medical assessment indicating mild cognitive impairment (MCI), family observations of increased confusion with technology, failure to recognize phishing attempts that were previously obvious, or difficulty with hardware wallet operations that were previously routine.

In this phase: transition from single-signature self-custody to 2-of-3 multisig. The elder retains one key and participates in transaction authorization, but cannot move Bitcoin alone. The trust's co-trustee provisions activate. The cooling-off mechanism engages for all transactions above the threshold. Trusted contacts begin receiving transaction notifications.

Phase 3: Full Trust Custody (Significant Impairment)

Triggered by: medical assessment indicating moderate or advanced cognitive impairment, a legal determination of incapacity, or observed inability to understand the nature and consequences of Bitcoin transactions.

In this phase: the elder's key in the multisig configuration is transferred to the successor keyholder designated in the trust document. The trust protector verifies the medical basis for the transition. The elder retains beneficial interest in the trust — receiving distributions for their needs — but has no role in custody or transaction authorization.

The Trigger Mechanism

The critical design question is: what triggers the transition between phases? The answer should never be an arbitrary age. An 85-year-old with full cognitive function should not lose custody authority simply because of a number. Instead, transitions should be triggered by medical assessments from qualified professionals, using standardized cognitive screening tools, and ideally confirmed by two independent physicians.

The trust document should specify exactly which assessments trigger which transitions, who has authority to request assessments, and what process governs disputes about capacity. Without this specificity, transitions become battles — and battles create exactly the kind of family conflict that exploiters thrive in.

Phase	Custody Model	Trigger	Key Protections
Phase 1: Full Self-Custody	Single-sig, holder controls	Default (full competence)	Trust in place but dormant; trusted contacts designated; succession documented
Phase 2: Shared Custody	2-of-3 multisig	MCI diagnosis or observable decline	Co-trustee approval; cooling-off periods; transaction notifications
Phase 3: Full Trust Custody	Trust-controlled multisig (elder removed)	Moderate/advanced impairment or legal incapacity	Full fiduciary control; trust protector oversight; court reporting if required

Case Study: The Henderson Family

Let's return to Margaret Henderson. Seventy-eight years old. Widowed two years ago. Thirty bitcoin in self-custody on a Coldcard in her bedroom safe — at current prices, a substantial estate. Early signs of cognitive decline detected by her daughter, who noticed that Margaret had begun leaving her hardware wallet out on the desk rather than returning it to the safe, had written her PIN on a sticky note attached to her monitor, and had mentioned on the phone that "a nice young man from the Bitcoin company" had been helping her check her balance.

The daughter did exactly the right thing: she didn't panic, she didn't grab the keys, and she didn't wait. She contacted an estate planning attorney experienced with digital assets and began building protective layers.

Week 1-2: Assessment and Foundation

Margaret's physician conducted a cognitive screening, which indicated mild cognitive impairment — consistent with her daughter's observations. Margaret was still legally competent to make decisions, including the decision to create protective structures. This window of competence was critical: once capacity is lost, the ability to create trusts and execute legal documents is gone.

The attorney drafted an irrevocable trust with the following provisions:

• Margaret as beneficiary, entitled to distributions for health, maintenance, and reasonable lifestyle needs
• Margaret's daughter and a professional fiduciary as co-trustees, with both required to approve any Bitcoin transaction exceeding 0.25 BTC
• A trust protector (Margaret's long-time family attorney) with authority to replace trustees, modify administrative provisions, and pause distributions if exploitation is suspected
• A 72-hour cooling-off period for all Bitcoin transactions exceeding 0.5 BTC
• Mandatory notification to Margaret's son (the trusted contact) of any Bitcoin transaction of any size

Week 3-4: Technical Implementation

The 30 BTC were transferred from Margaret's single-sig Coldcard wallet into a 2-of-3 multisig configuration:

• Key 1: Held by Margaret's daughter (co-trustee)
• Key 2: Held by the professional fiduciary (co-trustee)
• Key 3: Held by the trust protector (emergency recovery only)

Note that Margaret herself did not retain a key. Given her early cognitive decline and the fact that she had already demonstrated operational security lapses (PIN on a sticky note, hardware wallet left out), the family and attorney agreed that Margaret's direct key possession created more risk than it mitigated. Margaret's beneficial interest in the trust ensures she has access to the economic value of the Bitcoin. The multisig ensures that no single person can move it.

Week 5-6: Ongoing Monitoring

The family implemented on-chain monitoring for the trust's multisig addresses. Any movement triggers immediate email and SMS alerts to all three keyholders and the trusted contact. Margaret's son, as trusted contact, reviews monthly statements prepared by the professional fiduciary.

Margaret was informed about the scam call she had received, and the "nice young man from the Bitcoin company" was reported to the FTC and the FBI's IC3. No Bitcoin was lost.

The Outcome

Margaret's 30 BTC remains protected. The trust structure means that even if Margaret receives future scam calls — and she will, because stolen call lists circulate for years — she has nothing to give. She doesn't hold the keys. She can't authorize transactions. The Bitcoin is safe not because of Margaret's ability to resist social engineering, but because the structure makes social engineering irrelevant.

Under the 2026 estate tax framework, the Bitcoin in Margaret's irrevocable trust uses a portion of her $15 million lifetime exemption but is now removed from her taxable estate, protecting against future estate tax if Bitcoin appreciates substantially. The trust's spendthrift provisions also protect the Bitcoin from Margaret's potential future creditors — including nursing home costs that could otherwise consume the estate.

Your Action Steps

If you have aging family members who hold Bitcoin — or if you yourself are planning for the decades ahead — these steps are not optional. They are the minimum responsible framework for protecting Bitcoin wealth from elder financial exploitation.

1. Have the conversation now. Discuss protective structures while the holder still has full legal capacity. Once capacity is diminished, the ability to create trusts, execute powers of attorney, and consent to custody changes is severely limited or gone entirely.
2. Create an irrevocable trust. Transfer Bitcoin into a trust that removes direct custody from the elder while preserving their beneficial interest. Include co-trustee requirements, cooling-off provisions, and a trust protector.
3. Implement multisig. Match the technical custody model to the trust's governance structure. No single person should be able to move the Bitcoin alone.
4. Designate trusted contacts. Ensure that Bitcoin transactions trigger notifications to people who are positioned to recognize exploitation and act on it.
5. Enable all available technology safeguards. Address whitelisting, withdrawal limits, device restrictions, and on-chain monitoring for any Bitcoin held on exchanges or through custodians.
6. Plan for phased transitions. Define clear, medically-triggered transitions from full self-custody to shared custody to full trust custody. Don't wait for a crisis to figure out who holds the keys.
7. Review and update annually. Cognitive status changes, family dynamics shift, technology evolves. The protective framework you build today needs annual review by qualified counsel to remain effective.

---

Elder financial abuse is not a theoretical risk. It is a $28.3 billion annual reality, and Bitcoin holders are among the most vulnerable targets. The irreversibility that makes Bitcoin valuable also makes Bitcoin exploitation catastrophic. But the same technology that creates the vulnerability — cryptographic key management, multisig authorization, transparent on-chain verification — also provides the tools for protection that traditional finance cannot match.

Trust structures remove the Bitcoin from the elder's direct control, making coercion futile. Multisig distributes authorization across multiple parties, eliminating single points of failure. Cooling-off periods neutralize the urgency that social engineers depend on. Trusted contacts add visibility that deters exploitation. And medically-triggered custody transitions ensure that protective layers engage before — not after — the holder's capacity to protect themselves diminishes.

The structures exist. The technology exists. The legal frameworks exist. What remains is the will to implement them while the window of capacity is still open.

Don't wait for the phone call from the "nice young man from the Bitcoin company." Build the walls now.