Montana Lawmakers Reject Bill to Make Bitcoin a State Reserve Asset

Montana’s House of Representatives has voted down a proposed bill that could have positioned Bitcoin as a state reserve asset, citing concerns over investment risks and taxpayer money. 

The decision, made on Feb. 22, saw House Bill No. 429 rejected in a 41-59 vote, with many lawmakers arguing that the proposal would allow for excessive speculation using public funds.

Also read: The Ultimate Guide to Bitcoin Storage: Security Best Practices

The bill sought to establish a special revenue account that would invest in precious metals, stablecoins, and digital assets that had maintained an average market capitalization of at least $750 billion over the past year—a criterion that, as of now, only Bitcoin (BTC) meets.

Concerns Over Risk and Speculation

Opponents of the bill, including State Representative Steven Kelly, emphasized the potential volatility of such investments.

“It’s still taxpayer money, and we’re responsible for it, and we need to protect it. These types of investments are way too risky,” Kelly stated during the House Floor Session.

Representative Bill Mercer also expressed his reservations, noting that he had not joined the legislature to oversee investments in cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Also read: Best Ways to Spend Crypto: From Shopping to Real Estate

“I did not come here to do that,” Mercer said, while another lawmaker added, “This smacks of speculation to me.”

Bitcoin Bill Supporters Argue for Higher Returns

Despite the rejection, some lawmakers, including Representative Lee Demming, advocated for the bill, stressing that the state should maximize returns on taxpayer funds rather than leaving money dormant.

“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 in there, either that or you give it right back to them. So I’m going to vote on this bill for that reason.”

Curtis Schomer, the bill’s sponsor, argued that failing to pass the measure would result in a loss of purchasing power for Montana’s investment board, which currently places a large portion of state funds in bonds.

Representative Steve Fitzpatrick echoed this sentiment, asserting that the board had substantial capital that could be utilized more effectively through investments in digital assets and precious metals.

“We can make a return to the taxpayer and ultimately that will allow us to give more money back, to cut taxes, and provide that fiscal relief that people are looking for.”

Also read: ChainSwap to Launch Telegram DeFi Trading Bot in Q1 2025

The Future of Bitcoin Reserves in Montana

Some lawmakers believed House Bill No. 429 had potential but needed additional amendments to address regulatory concerns. However, with the rejection, the bill is now effectively dead, meaning any future attempt to establish a Bitcoin reserve would require a new legislative proposal.

The decision comes just days after the Montana Business and Labor Committee approved the bill in a 12-8 vote on Feb. 19, with all Republican members in favor and Democrats in opposition.

Growing Trend Among US States

Montana’s failed proposal is part of a broader trend in the United States, where 24 states have introduced legislation to establish a Bitcoin reserve. Among them are Arizona, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas.

According to Bitcoin Laws, 20 of these states still have active bills under discussion.

Also read: Crypto Confidence: Altvest Capital Makes Bitcoin Its Treasury Reserve Asset

Utah is currently leading the way in Bitcoin reserve legislation. The state’s HB230 “Blockchain and Digital Innovation Amendments” bill successfully passed through the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee on Feb. 20 and is now moving forward for further readings before a final Senate vote.

While Montana’s rejection marks a setback, the increasing number of states exploring Bitcoin reserves suggests that the conversation around digital assets in state treasuries is far from over.