Recovery and return

Owners who no longer possess the credentials needed to authorize transactions may be unable to complete an ordinary migration. What happens to those assets also depends on the rules adopted by the network. Potomac’s recovery-and-return program is intended to address this problem through technical research and a governance framework developed before operations begin.

This does not mean that all inactive balances have lost owners, or that those balances become the property of the first organization able to move them. A wallet may be in long-term storage, controlled through arrangements invisible on the chain, or subject to circumstances the company does not know.

A claims process must consider evidence independent of a newly recovered private key. Otherwise the recovery itself would manufacture its own supposed proof of ownership. The process must be able to handle incomplete records, estates, competing claims, and cases in which no claimant has yet appeared.

Inactivity is not a sufficient decision rule. The absence of a response must not be treated as consent.

Recovery possibilities depend on the rules that networks adopt. Communities may choose migration mechanisms, restrictions on old signature systems, or alternative rescue procedures. A company cannot promise that all historically spendable assets will remain spendable by the same means.

The proposed program must evaluate technical feasibility and network authority separately. It should participate in research and public discussion without presenting its preferred outcome as an already accepted protocol decision. The proposals below are proposals, not adopted network policy.

Before any transfer, the program needs a documented answer to who controls the assets, how that control is secured, what approvals are required, and what happens if a decision is disputed. Returned assets require a verified destination and an auditable chain of decisions.

Unclaimed or disputed assets raise questions that this framework does not settle. Custody, holding periods, fees, dispute resolution, and possible final disposition remain governance decisions to be developed with appropriate expertise. The program must not quietly treat these assets as Potomac revenue.

A company that is paid for successful recovery could have an incentive to classify more assets as recoverable or more claims as sufficient. Its own financial interest is therefore a reason for stronger review.

The proposed framework separates technical verification from claims decisions and asset disposition. It requires disclosure of financial interests, recusal where appropriate, independent challenge, and clear records. Any future fee model will be stated separately from the value of the assets involved.