Montana House Rejects $50M Bitcoin Reserve Bill Amid Growing Global Trend

Montana House Rejects Bitcoin Reserve Bill Amid Global Trend

On February 22, 2025, Montana’s House of Representatives decisively rejected House Bill No. 429, with a vote of 41-59, halting the state’s potential leap into investing $50 million in cryptocurrencies, primarily Bitcoin, as a state reserve asset.

• Montana House rejects Bitcoin reserve bill by a vote of 41-59
• Proposed $50 million investment in cryptocurrencies, focusing on Bitcoin
• Fiscal conservatives oppose due to speculative risks

The bill, introduced by Representative Curtis Schomer, aimed to diversify Montana’s financial portfolio by investing in digital currencies. It had gained traction in the House Business and Labor Committee, passing with a 12-8 vote. However, fiscal conservatives in the full House raised red flags about the risks associated with such volatile assets.

Representative Steven Kelly, a vocal opponent, emphasized the potential peril to taxpayer funds, stating,

“It’s still taxpayer money, and we’re responsible for it. We need to protect it. These types of investments are way too risky.”

His concerns were echoed by Representatives Jane Gillette and Bill Mercer, who worried about the lack of clear management guidelines and Bitcoin’s notorious volatility, often likened to a financial rollercoaster.

Despite the setback, the debate over Bitcoin reserves is far from over. Across the United States, 28 states, including powerhouses like Utah, Arizona, Texas, and Ohio, are exploring similar initiatives. Internationally, countries such as Switzerland, Brazil, Japan, and Russia are also considering Bitcoin as part of their strategic reserves. This global momentum underscores the growing acceptance of cryptocurrencies in public finance.

Advocates for House Bill No. 429, including Representative Lee Demming and Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Action Fund, argued that Bitcoin’s decentralized nature—a system not controlled by any single entity like banks or governments—and its limited supply, with only 21 million Bitcoins ever to exist, could make it a valuable hedge against economic uncertainty. Porter noted,

“Bitcoin’s decentralized structure and limited supply make it an attractive hedge against economic uncertainty.”

They believe Bitcoin could offer higher returns and protect against inflation, positioning Montana as a forward-thinking player in finance.

The Satoshi Action Fund, which collaborates with legislators to promote Bitcoin-friendly legislation, remains undeterred by Montana’s decision. Alongside Senator Daniel Zolnikov, they plan to refine their strategies and continue pushing for similar initiatives in future legislative sessions. The rejection serves as a catalyst for advocates to better navigate the complex landscape of public finance and digital assets.

While Montana’s decision highlights the challenges of integrating cryptocurrencies into state reserves, it also contrasts with the broader trend. States like Pennsylvania have proposed up to a 10% allocation of public funds to Bitcoin, while Wyoming suggests a more conservative 3%. These varying strategies reflect different levels of risk tolerance and strategic planning across the U.S.

The rejection in Montana underscores the ongoing tension between embracing disruptive financial technologies and safeguarding public funds. As the world watches, the debate over the role of cryptocurrencies in public finance continues to evolve, with each state’s decision adding a new chapter to this financial revolution.

Key Questions and Takeaways

What was the outcome of House Bill No. 429 in Montana?
The Montana House of Representatives rejected House Bill No. 429 with a vote of 41-59 on February 22, 2025.

What was the purpose of House Bill No. 429?
The bill aimed to establish Bitcoin as a state reserve asset by creating a special revenue account with a $50 million investment in cryptocurrencies.

Why did fiscal conservatives oppose the bill?
Fiscal conservatives opposed the bill due to the speculative risks associated with Bitcoin and the potential threat to taxpayer funds.

Which states and countries are exploring Bitcoin reserves?
Approximately 28 U.S. states, including Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, and Ohio, and countries like Switzerland, Brazil, Japan, and Russia are exploring Bitcoin reserves.

What arguments did supporters of the bill make?
Supporters argued that Bitcoin could yield higher returns and protect against inflation, positioning Montana as a forward-thinking player in finance.

What is the broader significance of Montana’s decision?
Montana’s decision highlights the ongoing debate over the role of cryptocurrencies in public finance, contrasting with the growing trend of integrating digital assets into state and national reserve strategies.

How does Bitcoin’s volatility impact its suitability as a reserve asset?
Bitcoin’s volatility, akin to a financial rollercoaster, poses significant risks to state reserves, as sudden value fluctuations could lead to substantial losses, making it a less reliable asset for long-term stability.

What are the next steps for advocates of cryptocurrency legislation in Montana?
Advocates, including the Satoshi Action Fund and Senator Daniel Zolnikov, plan to refine their strategies and push for similar legislation in future sessions, learning from the current rejection to better align with fiscal conservative concerns.