On February 22, 2025, the Montana House of Representatives voted against House Bill No. 429, a proposal to establish a state-level Bitcoin reserve. The bill, which aimed to diversify Montana’s financial holdings by creating a special revenue account for investing in Bitcoin, precious metals, and stablecoins, was rejected by a vote of 41 in favor to 59 against. This decision has sparked discussions about whether Montana missed an opportunity to innovate or made a cautious choice in managing taxpayer funds.
The bill had outlined that the state treasurer would allocate $50 million to the reserve by mid-July 2025, with investments limited to digital assets maintaining a market capitalization above $750 billion—effectively targeting Bitcoin, the only cryptocurrency meeting this threshold at the time. Supporters, including the bill’s sponsor, Representative Curtis Schomer, argued that it could protect the state’s purchasing power against inflation and offer higher returns than traditional bonds.
However, opposition, largely from fiscal conservatives and many Republicans, centered on the perceived volatility of Bitcoin and the risks of using public funds for such investments. Representative Steven Kelly emphasized the state’s duty to protect taxpayer money, calling cryptocurrency investments “way too risky.”
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).
Though the bill passed the House Business and Labor Committee on February 19 with a 12-8 vote, it failed to gain traction in the full House. Montana now joins states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania in rejecting similar Bitcoin reserve proposals. Meanwhile, around 20 other U.S. states, including Utah and Arizona, continue to explore or advance crypto-friendly legislation, highlighting a patchwork of approaches to digital assets across the country. For now, Montana’s decision reflects a preference for financial caution over embracing cryptocurrency as a state reserve asset.
Texas has been notably proactive in advancing crypto-friendly legislation. In early 2025, Senate Bill 21 was introduced, proposing a strategic Bitcoin reserve with no upper limit on purchases, signaling strong support for integrating Bitcoin into state finances. This follows a pattern of crypto enthusiasm in Texas, where earlier laws have recognized virtual currencies under the Uniform Commercial Code and allowed banks to custody digital assets. The state’s rejection of restrictive measures contrasts with its push to foster a blockchain-friendly environment, including support for mining operations.
Utah stands out as a leader in crypto legislation. The state has introduced multiple bills to encourage adoption, including measures to allow cryptocurrency payments for state taxes and fees. Utah’s regulatory framework exempts certain blockchain activities from money transmitter laws, creating a welcoming environment for crypto businesses. Its consistent efforts have positioned it ahead of many peers in integrating digital assets into state operations.
Ohio’s Blockchain Basics Act, introduced in early 2025, aims to treat crypto payments equivalently to fiat, prohibiting additional state taxes on such transactions. It also supports mining and self-custody, positioning Ohio as a state embracing practical crypto use without necessarily focusing on reserves.
Several states have seen crypto proposals falter. North Dakota, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania rejected Bitcoin reserve bills in early 2025, often due to concerns over volatility and fiscal risk. Montana’s House Bill 429, which aimed to create a $50 million Bitcoin reserve, was voted down on February 22, 2025, by a 41-59 margin, highlighting a cautious approach among some legislators wary of using public funds for crypto investments.