Write it at the time, and record five things: the authority relied on, the facts considered, the advice taken and from whom, the decision itself, and the review date. Fiduciary conduct is judged on what a trustee did and why, at the moment they did it. A record built afterward is the thing that looks like reconstruction, because it is.
Part of our guide: Crypto Estate Planning.
The short version
- Fiduciary standards assess process at the time, so contemporaneous is the whole point.
- Five fields per decision: authority, facts, advice, decision, review date.
- Documented reliance on a competent source is part of discharging the duty, not a hedge.
- The decisions that need recording are the ones that could be second-guessed: custody model, concentration, protocol events, and any exercise of discretion.
- A decision log is minutes of work at the time and cannot be produced later.
The five fields
Authority. Which clause of the instrument, or which statutory provision, permits this. Where the instrument is silent, say so and record what was done about the silence.
Facts considered. The trust’s purposes, the beneficiaries’ circumstances, the role of the asset, the custody options available, and anything specific to the moment.
Advice taken. Who gave it, what they said, when. Naming the adviser matters more than summarizing the advice.
The decision. What was done, in plain terms, with amounts and dates.
Review date. When this gets looked at again. A decision with no review date silently becomes a permanent position nobody chose.
Why contemporaneous is the requirement
Prudent investor standards judge conduct rather than outcome. The question in any dispute is what the trustee knew and considered when they acted, and the only reliable evidence of that is a record made at the time.
A file assembled after a loss faces an unavoidable problem: everything in it was written by someone who already knew the outcome. Even where the reasoning is truthful, it reads as justification. A dated note written before anyone knew what would happen does not have that difficulty.
The statutory framing for LLC managers makes the same structure explicit, and the reasoning carries over: the duty of care is to act as “a person in a like position would reasonably exercise under similar circumstances,” and a person discharging it “may rely in good faith upon opinions, reports, statements or other information provided by another person that the [person] reasonably believes is a competent and reliable source” (W.S. 17-29-409(c)).
Reliance is protective, and only if you recorded who you relied on.
What actually needs recording
Not everything. The decisions where a reasonable person could later ask why.
The custody model, and why it was chosen over the alternatives. This is the most important entry a crypto trustee will make, because there is no settled standard of practice to point at and the record has to supply the reasoning a court would otherwise construct.
Concentration. Holding a large single position is permissible when the instrument allows it or circumstances justify it. What draws a claim is concentration nobody decided on.
Protocol events. Staking, forks, airdrops. Whether to participate, where rewards were directed, who bears a loss.
Any exercise of discretion: distributions, timing, a decision to sell or not sell.
Changes to access arrangements: signers added or removed, devices replaced, custodians changed.
Beneficiary communications, because informed beneficiaries who did not object are a materially different position from surprised ones.
What the record does not need
Market commentary, forecasts about where the asset is headed, or a defense of the asset class. None of that is what a trustee is judged on, and speculative framing in a fiduciary file is a liability rather than a support.
Keep it factual and short. A page per decision is usually more than enough, and short records get written while long ones get postponed.
What I actually see
Trustees document investment decisions reasonably well and operational decisions almost not at all. The custody arrangement, the access changes, the reward routing, all of the things most likely to cause an actual loss, live in nobody’s file.
The second gap is the review date. Decisions get made once and become permanent by default. A custody arrangement chosen in 2023 for reasons that made sense then is still in place in 2026 because nothing prompted a re-look, and a trustee has no record of ever having considered it again.
The habit that works is small: one document, one entry per decision, five fields, written the day it happens. It takes a few minutes and it is the only fiduciary protection that cannot be bought afterward.
Where a decision is close, record the alternative that was rejected and why. That single line does more for a trustee under challenge than a page of justification.
Where this goes wrong
The reasoning existed and the record does not.
The specific failures: a custody arrangement chosen thoughtfully with nothing written down, so the thought is invisible. Advice taken verbally from a professional who is no longer reachable. Concentration that resulted from inaction rather than decision. Protocol rewards routed by default rather than instruction. And a file assembled after a beneficiary raised a question, which is the worst possible time to start.
There is also the opposite failure, though it is rarer: a file so voluminous nobody can find the decisions in it. Volume is not a substitute for dated, specific entries.
The decision rule
- One entry per decision, written the same day.
- Five fields: authority, facts, advice, decision, review date.
- Name the adviser rather than paraphrasing the advice.
- Record the rejected alternative where the call was close.
- Log operational decisions, not just investment ones.
- Honor the review dates, and record the review even when nothing changes.
- Keep beneficiary communications in the same file.
Where this sits
Documentation is how every other trustee duty is demonstrated. Trustee liability is what the record defends against. Holding a hardware wallet is the decision most in need of a written rationale. Whether the trust can hold the assets is the authority the first field points at.
Fiduciaries are judged on what can be shown afterward. Almost none of it can be created later, which makes the few minutes at the time the highest-return work available.
Sources
- Wyoming Uniform Trust Code, Wyo. Stat. Ann. Title 4, Chapter 10 (Wyoming Legislature)
- Wyoming Limited Liability Company Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-29-409
- Uniform Prudent Investor Act (Uniform Law Commission)
- Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act
- IRS, Recordkeeping for businesses
- IRS, Digital assets
Related
- Can a trustee be liable for crypto losses?
- Can a trustee hold a hardware wallet?
- Can a trust hold Bitcoin, Ethereum, or other digital assets?
- What records should a crypto LLC keep?
- Crypto LLC manager duties
- Crypto trust structures
Last updated: 3 August 2026.
This article is general education, not legal, tax, or investment advice. Fiduciary obligations depend on your instrument, your jurisdiction, and your facts. Talk to a qualified estate attorney about your own situation.
