Protect
Threats, access paths and dependencies are identified. Controls have explicit owners and failure states.
Request a conversation21 Fruits reference model
A practical model for deciding whether a self-custody system is understandable, verifiable and recoverable—without exposing the secrets it protects.
The premise
“Secure”, “verified” and “recoverable” are not general properties. Each conclusion depends on a claim, a method, a source of evidence and a point in time. The framework separates those elements so that confidence cannot silently exceed what was actually checked.
A positive result in one layer does not prove the next.
What this means for you: at the end, you know what has been shown to work, what is still open and when the next check is due. A typical result might read: “Conditional – recovery successfully rehearsed in March; instructions for relatives outdated after a device change; next check due in June.”
The framework is how 21 Fruits works. It is not an external certification or a seal of approval.
Four outcomes
Readiness is the combined result of four different capabilities.
Threats, access paths and dependencies are identified. Controls have explicit owners and failure states.
Important claims can be checked against defined sources, with results that retain scope and time.
Roles, wallet policy, trust boundaries and stop conditions are clear to the people responsible.
Capability can be restored when a person, device, location or service is unavailable.
Seven review domains
Each domain produces its own evidence. A weakness in one domain can invalidate confidence created elsewhere.
Ownership, decision rights, operational responsibility, verification responsibility and escalation are assigned.
The intended wallet, signer set, threshold, derivation information and authoritative records can be distinguished from obsolete material.
Required components can be located and used under approved conditions without copying secrets into the review record.
Addresses, policy, transaction intent and relevant system state are checked through defined and sufficiently independent paths.
Devices, software, nodes, providers, locations and knowledgeable people are mapped, including procedures for when any of them is unavailable.
A realistic exercise demonstrates that the intended system can be restored and independently verified.
Successors or delegates can initiate the approved process, recognise uncertainty and stop when required evidence is missing.
Evidence states
Checked against the relevant system within the defined review period.
Previously checked, but time or a material change requires a new review.
No reliable evidence supports the claim. Work remains to be done.
The required evidence source cannot presently be reached or used.
Decision states
The defined claims are supported by current evidence within the stated boundary.
The system may proceed only with documented limitations, owners and review dates.
Required evidence conflicts, is stale, unknown or unavailable before an irreversible action.
A high numerical score can hide one critical failure. The framework therefore records evidence and stop conditions instead of reducing readiness to a percentage.
Review cycle
State the system, claim, boundary and accountable role.
Gather non-secret evidence and identify its source.
Exercise verification and recovery under realistic conditions.
Record Verified, Conditional or Stop with open findings.
Repeat after time, change or any material failure.
Security boundary
It must never contain seed phrases, private keys, PINs, passphrases or recovery words. 21 Fruits is not a wallet, custodian or signer: 21 Fruits does not hold Bitcoin, receives no private keys and signs no transactions.
Download the four-page reference ↓