In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102, requiring all U.S. citizens to turn in their privately held gold to the government.

It was an unprecedented act of financial seizure, backed by the threat of fines and imprisonment. To this day, it remains one of the most cited examples of government overreach among the Bitcoin investment community.

Roughly 25% of privately held gold was ultimately confiscated, meaning the vast majority, approximately 75%, remained in private hands. Much of what was seized came from centralized bank vaults, where enforcement was swift and centralized. It was easy to identify, access, and seize.

Naturally, one of the first questions people used to ask about Bitcoin was: “What if the government bans it?”

The more nuanced version of that question that remains today is: “What if the government enacts something like Executive Order 6102—again?”

So, could this happen with Bitcoin?

Technically, yes. Any government could issue a similar directive targeting Bitcoin ownership.

But Bitcoin is fundamentally different from gold: it’s digital, borderless, and much harder to centrally confiscate. That said, your level of protection against this potential threat vector depends on how your Bitcoin is secured and whether you’ve introduced centralized risks that resemble the vulnerabilities of 1933.

The weakest protection in a 6102-style scenario would be Bitcoin held at centralized custodians or exchanges, especially those managing pooled customer funds with unilateral control.

Coinbase is a clear example; it custodies more than 2 million BTC on behalf of its customers (approximately 10% of the Bitcoin supply), and its centralized structure would make it an easy target.

Where does multi-institution custody fit in?

Multi-institution custody (MIC) wasn’t designed to circumvent legal authority. It was designed to eliminate single points of failure, such as one custodian in one jurisdiction having unilateral control over your Bitcoin.

While MIC does not fully safeguard Bitcoin ownership against a 6102-style decree, it makes rushed, unilateral seizure far less feasible.

When you custody Bitcoin with Onramp:

• Your Bitcoin is held in a segregated vault (not commingled with other clients)
• It is secured by three independent institutions, none of which control your Bitcoin
• Those institutions span two countries (U.S. and U.K.) and two U.S. states (Texas and South Dakota)
• Two out of the three institutions must sign to move your Bitcoin (at your explicit instruction)

No single party, including Onramp, can access or move your Bitcoin alone. Every transaction requires quorum approval, introducing both legal and operational friction for any government attempting seizure.

Four ways it reduces risk:

1. No single institution can act without your consent

Onramp cannot move client assets. Multi-institution custody prevents any single institution from controlling your Bitcoin.

2. Jurisdictional flexibility

Institutions are distributed across legal and geographic regions. This makes it harder for any single court order to be effective. Onramp is continually expanding its network of institutional partners across jurisdictions to hedge against political risk.

3. Transferability

You retain the ability to transfer your Bitcoin out of your vault at any time, typically within 24–48 hours, and withdrawals can be processed same-day in urgent situations.

4. Legal separation

MIC offers strong legal separation. A court order targeting one institution is not enough. Coordinated legal action across multiple businesses and jurisdictions would be required, raising the bar significantly for any adversarial seizure attempt.

That said…

If your primary concern is avoiding government seizure, the model that best minimizes that risk is self-custody.

At Onramp, we believe in transparency and client empowerment, not selling the illusion of perfect immunity.

Multi-institution custody greatly reduces your exposure to many risks, but it doesn’t eliminate every state-level vector.

Bitcoin custody solutions all have trade-offs.

Every custody model comes with trade-offs. Multi-institution custody is no exception. We encourage clients to think critically about the full range of risks and considerations that apply to their long-term Bitcoin strategy.

While a 6102-style attack is theoretically possible, it’s just one of many threats Bitcoin holders should consider, including:

• Loss of access due to forgotten keys or seed phrases
• Failure to plan for inheritance
• Hacks or phishing attacks
• Exchange insolvency
• Physical coercion or targeted attacks
• Loss of hardware or failure of key devices
• Operational missteps (e.g., sending Bitcoin to the wrong address)
• Natural disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes, or tornadoes

The best custody solution ultimately depends on what challenges you are trying to solve for, your day-to-day concerns, and your personal assessment of which risks are most likely to materialize.

That’s why we often recommend a barbell strategy: hold a portion of your Bitcoin in secure self-custody (if capable), and the rest in MIC to unlock institutional-grade security, inheritance planning, financial services, and insurance.

It’s about balancing sovereignty and simplicity while diversifying your exposure to different risk vectors.

Final thoughts

The political environment is shifting in favor of Bitcoin. Today’s regulatory and legal climate is far more favorable than even a few years ago. Still, it’s logical for Bitcoin holders to remain vigilant.

If you’re seriously considering how your Bitcoin is secured across jurisdictions, generations, or institutions, we’d be happy to help you build a plan tailored to your specific needs.

Our team is here to support you in your decision-making process. We’ve guided thousands of clients and can help you make the right decision for your circumstances - book a consultation.