Every state that receives escheated crypto must answer one question before it does anything else: sell it, or hold it? The whole field folds out from that fork, and no pair of states illustrates it more cleanly than South Dakota and Utah.
One philosophy says a state treasury has no business holding a volatile asset on a citizen's behalf. Convert it to dollars on arrival, book the proceeds to the owner's name, and let the claim be for money — simple, auditable, final. This is the liquidation model, and it is the majority position among states that have confronted the question at all.
The other philosophy says the property is the coin, not its price on some arbitrary Tuesday. A state persuaded by this view directs its administrator to hold escheated virtual currency in kind — as crypto — so that the owner who eventually claims receives the asset itself, appreciation and all. It asks more of the state, which must arrange custody; it returns more, potentially, to the owner.
Under one model you recover what your crypto was worth. Under the other, you recover your crypto.
Why the fork decides your case
The model in force determines what a file is worth, how urgent it is, and sometimes what evidence is needed. A claim to liquidated proceeds can be pursued at leisure — the amount is fixed. A claim to held coin is live: its value moves daily, and so does the argument for acting quickly. The first question we answer on any new file is which side of the fork the relevant state stands on, because everything else — valuation, urgency, even the shape of the engagement letter — follows from it.
Think this file describes you?
Searching costs nothing and commits you to nothing. Tell us what you remember — the exchange, the years, the address you lived at — and we will tell you honestly whether there is a trail worth following.
Open an inquiry →