Montana’s ambitious Bitcoin reserve bill, House Bill 429, met an unexpected setback on February 22, 2025, when it was rejected by the state’s House of Representatives in a 41-59 vote. The bill aimed to create a special fund for investing in digital assets like Bitcoin, stablecoins, and precious metals. However, lawmakers raised significant concerns about the risks associated with these investments, particularly in relation to taxpayer funds.
This decision marks a stark contrast to the growing number of U.S. states exploring Bitcoin reserves. Inspired by discussions around a national “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” a movement has emerged across the country with several states drafting or passing legislation to include Bitcoin in state investment portfolios. Montana, however, chose a different path.
A Risky Venture
The central issue for Montana lawmakers was the perceived volatility of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Despite Bitcoin meeting the bill’s requirement of having a market cap of at least $750 billion, critics within the Montana House expressed concern about the speculative nature of such investments.
State Representative Steven Kelly was one of the most vocal opponents of the proposal. On the floor, he stated, “It’s still taxpayer money, and we’re responsible for it, and we need to protect it.” Kelly, along with several other lawmakers, argued that cryptocurrency, due to its fluctuating value, posed a significant risk to the state’s financial stability.
While the bill had previously gained support from Montana’s business and labor committee, it faced fierce opposition during the final vote. Lawmakers like Representative Bill Mercer voiced concerns over giving the Montana Board of Investments the authority to handle such digital assets, with Mercer noting, “I did not come here to do that.” Some opponents even referred to the proposed investment strategy as “speculative.”
Support for Higher Returns
Despite these concerns, there were those who saw the potential benefits of investing in Bitcoin. Representative Lee Demming, a proponent of the bill, argued that the state should seek higher returns on its investments for the benefit of taxpayers. Demming emphasized that, if Montana were to retain taxpayer money, it had a responsibility to secure the best possible returns, whether that be through traditional investments or digital assets.
Demming’s arguments echoed the growing interest in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a high-reward investment avenue for governments looking to diversify their financial portfolios. While some recognized the potential of Bitcoin, the majority of lawmakers felt the risks were too great to justify such an approach.
National Trends and Montana’s Position
Montana’s rejection of Bitcoin reserve legislation comes at a time when several other states, including Arizona, Texas, and Ohio, continue to push forward with similar proposals. Twenty U.S. states currently have active bills related to Bitcoin reserves, reflecting the growing interest in digital currencies within state financial strategies.
However, Montana’s decision to kill House Bill 429 places it alongside a few other states, like Wyoming and Pennsylvania, that have taken a more cautious stance on cryptocurrency investments. While states like Utah and Arizona are advancing their Bitcoin bills for Senate debate, Montana’s move suggests a reluctance to embrace what some view as a risky venture.
For now, Montana’s Bitcoin reserve bill is effectively dead, but the possibility remains that future legislation could bring the proposal back to life in a future session. Whether other states will continue their push for Bitcoin reserves, or whether Montana’s caution will serve as a model for others, remains to be seen.
Post Views: 15
