Historic Bitcoin Boom: A Third of U.S. States Weigh Crypto for Public Fu

As digital assets continue to mature within financial markets, sixteen U.S. states are actively considering legislation that would permit Bitcoin to be incorporated into public funds. This legislative trend underscores a paradigm shift in governmental fiscal policy, reflecting Bitcoin’s increasing legitimacy as an alternative asset class and hedge against inflation. If adopted, these policies could redefine the composition and risk profiles of state-managed reserves.

Utah has emerged as a leader in this movement with its Blockchain and Digital Innovation Amendments bill, which successfully advanced through a key House committee with an 8-1 vote. If enacted, this legislation would authorize the state treasurer to allocate up to 5% of public funds into "qualifying digital assets," a criterion that, due to market capitalization thresholds, is currently exclusive to Bitcoin.

Advocates argue that Bitcoin’s decentralized architecture provides a resilient and deflationary store of value, enhancing fiscal stability. Opponents, however, raise concerns over regulatory ambiguities and potential legal conflicts, particularly in relation to Utah’s Money Transmitter Act, which may necessitate additional legislative adjustments.

Other states are similarly advancing crypto-related financial policies. New Mexico has introduced SB275, which proposes allocating 5% of public funds to Bitcoin as a strategic hedge against inflation.

Arizona’s Senate Finance Committee has moved forward with SB1025, enabling state-managed pension funds to allocate up to 10% of their holdings into Bitcoin ETFs, a development welcomed by proponents of digital asset diversification.

Massachusetts is considering a comparable initiative, proposing that up to 10% of its stabilization fund be allocated to Bitcoin as a counterweight to traditional financial risks.

Texas, a long-time proponent of digital assets, is exploring a dual-pronged approach—one legislative effort aims to allocate 1% of its general revenue fund to Bitcoin, while another provision seeks to facilitate cryptocurrency donations to state agencies, with an optional conversion mechanism into Bitcoin.

Despite growing momentum, legislative outcomes have been mixed. North Dakota recently rejected a similar proposal, citing concerns over volatility, security risks, and fiduciary responsibility.

Nevertheless, broader trends indicate waning resistance, as states such as Oklahoma, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio continue to deliberate similar policies.

As discussions progress, the long-term fiscal and regulatory implications of Bitcoin-backed reserves remain uncertain. However, the growing willingness of state policymakers to engage with digital asset strategies signals that Bitcoin’s role in governmental finance is poised for continued expansion.