New Hampshire and North Dakota Consider Bitcoin as Part of State Treasuries

by

In addition to other U.S. states, North Dakota and New Hampshire are proposing laws to create Bitcoin reserves.

As an analyst, I’m observing a strategic shift aimed at expanding the diversity of our national reserves to mitigate potential threats from economic turbulences such as inflation.

Bitcoin Reserve Bills Gain Momentum in the US

In simpler terms, legislators in North Dakota have presented a plan to incorporate digital currencies and precious metals as part of their investment approach. House Concurrent Resolution 3001 instructs the State Treasurer and Investment Board to set aside a portion of crucial state funds like the general fund and legacy fund for these unconventional investments.

According to the bill, it is recommended that the State Treasurer and State Investment Board consider allocating a section of the state’s general fund, rainy day fund, and legacy fund towards purchasing digital currencies and precious metals.

The resolution, without directly mentioning Bitcoin, still hints at digital assets, indicating a rising fascination towards cryptocurrencies as potential investments. Advocates argue that embracing such an approach may fortify the financial stability of the state, providing a shield against economic stresses like inflation.

Legislators have proposed a bill in New Hampshire aiming to create a State Reserve for digital currency like Bitcoin. While the bill doesn’t explicitly mention Bitcoin, it appears that this particular digital currency would be the only one allowed for investment based on its specific conditions outlined within the legislation.

According to the law, only digital assets with a yearly market capitalization exceeding $500 billion or stablecoins are eligible for consideration. Notably, Bitcoin stands out as the sole asset meeting this criteria.

In the crypto world, the lack of mentioning Bitcoin in these two proposals has ignited discussions among community members. Some critics see this omission as an opportunity for incorporating other digital assets. On the other hand, supporters interpret it as a strategic move to dodge potential political opposition.

As a dedicated researcher in the field of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, I found myself in agreement with Dennis Porter’s perspective on tech-neutral legislation. This strategy, he argued, facilitates a more seamless integration of policies within the digital currency landscape. By adopting this approach, lawmakers can feel reassured that they are making informed decisions without encountering unwarranted controversy.

In some regions, we may need to draft legislation that’s technology-agnostic, a strategy often employed in policy-making to minimize political tension. This means that certain bills will focus solely on Bitcoin, while others will be based on market capitalization. Our team collaborates closely with lawmakers to boost their confidence in the bill’s success. We’ve found this tech-neutral approach effective for many years now. Porter elaborated on this.

Nevertheless, proposing such bills follows a wider movement among U.S. states like Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Alabama, who are all considering the creation of Bitcoin reserves. This initiative seems to be influenced by President-elect Donald Trump’s suggestion of establishing a federal Bitcoin reserve.

Presently, the U.S. government is in possession of around 200,000 Bitcoins, valued at more than $18 billion, making it the world’s top nation-state Bitcoin owner. Yet, the departing Biden administration has gained consent to sell off 69,370 BTC that were confiscated from the Silk Road marketplace, which equates to approximately $6.5 billion in value.

Matt Hougan, Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise, proposed that the incoming administration might consider purchasing Bitcoin as a strategic move to strengthen the nation’s financial standing within the international cryptocurrency market.

Read More

2025-01-11 13:31