North Dakota and New Hampshire have recently introduced legislation aimed at establishing strategic Bitcoin reserves, joining a growing trend among U.S. states to diversify their treasuries with digital assets.
In New Hampshire, the legislation was introduced by Representative Keith Ammon and does not explicitly mention Bitcoin, instead referring to “digital assets.” This approach is seen as a way to reduce political friction, allowing for broader acceptance while still targeting Bitcoin. Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Action Fund, noted that this is a common strategy in policymaking to ensure bills pass more easily without causing controversy. The New Hampshire bill proposes the state could hold digital assets as part of its treasury, potentially including up to $360 million in cryptocurrencies if passed.
In North Dakota, a similar initiative was proposed through House Concurrent Resolution 3001, which encourages the State Treasurer and the State Investment Board to invest a portion of state funds, including the general fund and legacy fund, in digital assets and precious metals. The resolution, while not naming Bitcoin explicitly, is understood to include it under the umbrella of digital assets. This move has already garnered support from 11 sponsors, indicating significant interest within the state’s legislative body.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
Both states’ actions reflect a broader discussion and growing acceptance of cryptocurrency among U.S. state governments, particularly in the wake of President-elect Donald Trump’s promises to integrate Bitcoin into national financial strategies. This legislative push is seen by some as a proactive step to hedge against inflation and economic uncertainty, while critics express concerns about the volatility and regulatory challenges associated with cryptocurrencies.
The landscape of cryptocurrency policies across U.S. states is quite diverse, with each state taking different approaches to regulation, taxation, and integration into their financial systems. Here’s a summary based on recent developments and policies:
Wyoming has positioned itself as one of the most crypto-friendly states. It has passed numerous bills since 2018 that exempt virtual currencies from money transmission laws and property taxation, and it has also created a regulatory sandbox for fintech innovation. Wyoming’s approach is to foster blockchain and cryptocurrency industries by providing a clear legal framework for digital assets.
Texas is notable for its mining capacity and low electricity costs, making it attractive for crypto miners. It has also passed legislation allowing state-chartered banks to custody cryptocurrencies. However, Texas does not require a money transmitter license for selling Bitcoin, indicating a somewhat permissive stance, though it has faced challenges with energy consumption related to mining.
New York has one of the strictest regulatory environments with its BitLicense program, which requires cryptocurrency businesses to obtain a special license to operate within the state. This has been criticized for its high costs and stringent requirements, leading some crypto platforms to avoid New York or cease operations there. The state also has high income taxes, which can impact crypto investors.
California, despite having some of the highest state taxes, has not been at the forefront of cryptocurrency regulation but has a significant presence of crypto businesses due to its tech industry. Recent moves include a Digital Financial Assets Law for licensing, but it was vetoed, showing a cautious approach to crypto regulation.
Colorado has implemented policies like allowing taxpayers to pay state taxes with cryptocurrency, signaling a progressive stance. It has also passed legislation to exempt certain digital tokens from securities laws, aiming to foster an environment conducive to crypto businesses.
Florida stands out for its lack of state income tax and recent moves to exempt crypto businesses from money transmission licensing, making it appealing for crypto-related operations. Miami has notably become a hub for crypto with initiatives from its mayor to accept part of his salary in Bitcoin.
Nevada has a case-by-case approach to determine if a business needs a money transmission license for cryptocurrency but has made clear its intention to regulate crypto activities. The state has also engaged in public education regarding digital assets.
Arizona has passed legislation to clarify that nodes on blockchain networks can be run from homes without local restrictions and has introduced blockchain education programs.
New Hampshire, aside from its recent move towards strategic Bitcoin reserves, has no state income tax on capital gains and has exempted crypto businesses from money transmission regulations.
Massachusetts applies money transmission laws to crypto businesses sending funds abroad but has not extended licensing requirements to all crypto activities.
Washington has introduced a blockchain work group and passed laws to regulate crypto exchanges, but it also increased electricity costs for crypto miners, reflecting a mixed approach.
The variation in state policies reflects a broader national conversation about how to integrate cryptocurrencies into existing financial systems while addressing regulatory concerns like consumer protection, anti-money laundering (AML), and counter-terrorism financing (CFT). States are navigating this new terrain with different strategies, from outright encouragement to cautious regulation, showing a patchwork of approaches across the U.S.