New York City Mayor Eric Adams proposed “BitBonds,” municipal bonds backed by Bitcoin, at the Bitcoin 2025 conference in Las Vegas. He aims to create a financial instrument for Bitcoin holders to invest in the city, positioning NYC as a crypto hub. The concept, inspired by a Bitcoin Policy Institute brief, suggests bonds with a 1% annual interest rate over 10 years, where 90% of funds go to government spending and 10% to buying Bitcoin.
Investors would receive a share of Bitcoin’s price gains, with returns capped at 4.5% annually, splitting excess gains 50/50 with the city. Adams also called for repealing the state’s BitLicense program to ease crypto regulations. However, NYC Comptroller Brad Lander rejected the proposal, calling it “legally dubious and fiscally irresponsible” due to Bitcoin’s volatility and lack of legal mechanisms for the city to issue such bonds or handle Bitcoin transactions.
Lander emphasized that city bonds are primarily for capital assets like infrastructure, not speculative investments, and could erode investor trust. Some experts suggest a pilot program to test BitBonds’ viability, but no concrete steps or timelines have been confirmed, and skepticism remains about implementation given regulatory and financial hurdles.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
BitBonds could position New York City as a pioneer in integrating cryptocurrency into municipal finance, potentially attracting crypto investors and boosting the city’s reputation as a tech-forward hub. However, Bitcoin’s volatility (e.g., 60% annualized volatility in 2024 per web:6) poses significant risks, potentially leading to losses for investors and the city if Bitcoin’s price crashes.
The proposed structure (90% of funds for city spending, 10% for Bitcoin purchases, with capped returns and shared gains) could generate additional revenue if Bitcoin appreciates significantly. For example, a $100 million bond with Bitcoin rising 50% could yield substantial returns for both the city and investors. However, a price drop could erode trust and limit funds for public projects.
Traditional municipal bond investors, who prioritize stability, might view BitBonds as risky, potentially increasing borrowing costs for NYC’s conventional bonds (currently yielding ~4% for 10-year bonds per web:19). This could strain the city’s $100 billion+ debt portfolio. The lack of legal mechanisms for NYC to issue crypto-backed bonds or custody Bitcoin directly complicates implementation. Federal securities laws and state regulations (e.g., BitLicense) could delay or block the initiative unless exemptions or new frameworks are established.
Adams’ proposal aligns with his pro-crypto stance (e.g., taking paychecks in Bitcoin), appealing to the growing crypto community and younger, tech-savvy voters. Posts on X show enthusiasm among crypto advocates, with some calling it a “game-changer” for municipal finance.
The proposal deepens divides, with critics like Comptroller Brad Lander labeling it reckless, reflecting broader skepticism among traditional financial and political figures. This could fuel debates over fiscal responsibility vs. innovation in the 2025 mayoral race. If poorly executed, BitBonds could undermine confidence in NYC’s financial management, especially if taxpayers bear losses from a Bitcoin downturn. Conversely, success could enhance Adams’ image as a forward-thinking leader.
BitBonds are a bold step to modernize finance, leverage Bitcoin’s potential (e.g., 120% price surge in 2023), and attract crypto wealth to fund city projects like infrastructure or social programs. Arguments aligns with global trends (e.g., El Salvador’s Bitcoin bonds). Could diversify city revenue streams, reducing reliance on traditional taxes. Appeals to a growing demographic of crypto investors (30% of U.S. adults own crypto).
BitBonds are speculative and risky, threatening NYC’s fiscal stability and investor confidence. Lander calls them “legally dubious” and warns of mismanagement. Bitcoin’s volatility makes it unsuitable for municipal bonds, which prioritize safety (e.g., NYC’s Aa2 Moody’s rating per web:19). No legal framework exists for cities to custody or trade Bitcoin, risking regulatory violations. Could alienate traditional bondholders, raising borrowing costs and impacting city services.
Critics on X call it a “gimmick” or “irresponsible stunt,” warning of a “crypto crash screwing taxpayers”. The debate reflects a cultural and economic split: crypto enthusiasts and tech optimists vs. traditionalists prioritizing stability. This mirrors national tensions over cryptocurrency regulation (e.g., SEC vs. crypto industry) and local concerns about fiscal prudence in a city with a $110 billion budget.
Practical hurdles (regulation, infrastructure, and market acceptance) suggest BitBonds remain speculative, with pilot programs as a potential compromise. Without clear progress, the divide may widen as skeptics double down on risk concerns and supporters push for crypto integration.