Montana’s Bitcoin Reserve Bill Falls Short as 19 States Consider Similar Measures #CriptoNews

Tldr

• Montana legislators blocked a $50 million crypto investment proposal with a 41-59 House vote
• Currently 20 out of 24 state Bitcoin reserve bills remain active across the US
• Utah’s digital asset bill has advanced furthest among all states, now awaiting Senate votes
• Arizona moves forward with a plan to allow 10% of public funds in crypto investments
• Texas considers two separate proposals for Bitcoin integration into state finances

The defeated measure, House Bill 429, proposed creating an investment account that would have permitted Montana to hold up to $50 million in digital assets and precious metals. The bill fell short in a 41-59 vote, with lawmakers expressing deep concerns about risking public money.

“It’s still taxpayer money, and we’re responsible for it, and we need to protect it,” declared State Representative Steven Kelly during floor debates. His sentiment echoed among many colleagues who viewed the proposal as too experimental for public funds.

The legislation set strict criteria for potential crypto investments, requiring digital assets to maintain a market capitalization above $750 billion for one calendar year. Bitcoin, currently valued at $1.8 trillion, stands alone in meeting these requirements.

Representative Curtis Schomer, who introduced the bill, argued that continuing to rely solely on traditional bonds puts state investments at risk of losing purchasing power. However, his warnings about conventional investment strategies failed to persuade his fellow lawmakers.

States Split on Bitcoin Reserve Plans

While Montana joins several states in rejecting crypto reserve proposals, the picture looks different elsewhere in the country. According to Bitcoin Reserve Tracker data, 24 states have introduced similar legislation, with 20 bills still active.

Utah has emerged as a frontrunner in this legislative movement. Its Blockchain and Digital Innovation Amendments bill, which would allow the state treasurer to direct up to 5% of public funds toward digital assets, has cleared multiple hurdles and now awaits final Senate approval.

Arizona’s approach goes even further. The state’s Senate Finance Committee has greenlit a proposal permitting up to 10% of public funds, including pension systems, to be invested in cryptocurrency. This bill now moves to the Senate Rules Committee for further review.

The legislative activity extends beyond these states. Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Illinois have all introduced measures to explore or establish Bitcoin reserves. Each proposal reflects local priorities and risk tolerances.

North Dakota, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania previously considered similar legislation but ultimately decided against moving forward with Bitcoin reserve plans. Their experiences helped shape debates in other states, including Montana’s recent discussions.

Before its final rejection, Montana’s proposal showed early promise. The state’s business and labor committee had approved the bill in a 12-8 vote on February 19, with Republican members supporting and Democrats opposing the measure.

Representative Lee Demming defended the bill during final debates, arguing that Montana should seek maximum returns on taxpayer funds. “If we’re going to keep the taxpayer’s money, I think we owe it to the taxpayers to get as high a return on that money that’s sitting there,” Demming stated.

For states still considering Bitcoin reserve legislation, Montana’s experience offers fresh insights into the challenges these proposals face. Representative Bill Mercer’s opposition highlighted common concerns, stating he “did not come here” to give investment boards authority over cryptocurrency investments.

Any future attempts to establish a Bitcoin reserve in Montana would require new legislation. The current bill’s defeat effectively closes this chapter of the state’s digital asset discussions.

Kentucky, Maryland, and Oklahoma continue to examine their own versions of Bitcoin reserve legislation, each adding unique elements to address local concerns and opportunities.

Representative Steve Fitzpatrick’s observation that Montana’s investment board “has a lot of money sitting in the bank” points to a common motivation behind these proposals: finding new ways to generate returns on public funds.