-
As 24 states chase Bitcoin reserves, why is Montana stepping away from the trend?
-
Montana’s Bitcoin reserve bill failed in a 41-59 House vote, ending its prospects.
-
Twenty U.S. states continue advancing similar Bitcoin reserve legislation despite Montana’s rejection.
Montana’s recent rejection of a Bitcoin reserve bill highlights a stark contrast with other states pursuing similar legislation amid growing crypto interest.
Why did the Montana lawmakers reject the Bitcoin Reserve bill?
State Representative Steven Kelly, speaking at Montana’s House Floor Session on the 22nd of February, said,
“It’s still taxpayer money, and we’re responsible for it, and we need to protect it.”
He added,
“These types of investments are way too risky.
For those unaware, an amendment proposing to fund the bill using interest earned from the American Rescue Plan Act was introduced but ultimately failed to gain enough support.
While the majority of Republicans supported the measure, with 40 voting in favor, 18 opposed it—joining the unanimous resistance from Democrats.
Other execs share similar sentiments
However, Representative Lee Demming emphasized that the bill aimed to secure better returns on taxpayer funds.
Speaking during the House Floor session, Demming argued that if the state retained taxpayer money, it had a responsibility to maximize returns for the benefit of the public.
Explaining his support for the bill, Demming added,
“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.”
Whereas, Representative Bill Mercer expressed concerns about granting Montana’s Board of Investments the authority to invest in cryptocurrencies and NFTs.
He said,
“I did not come here to do that.”
While another lawmaker added,
“This smacks of speculation to me.”
Hence, despite some lawmakers recognizing the potential of House Bill No. 429, calls for further amendments weren’t enough to secure its passage.
Montana’s recent move contradicts other states’ approach
The bill, which had previously advanced through Montana’s business and labor committee with full Republican support, ultimately failed in the House, effectively ending its prospects for now.
Thereby, to reintroduce a Bitcoin reserve initiative, fresh legislation would need to be proposed in future sessions.
Meanwhile, 24 states across the U.S. are pursuing similar legislation, with 20 bills still active in states like Arizona, Texas, and Ohio.
Montana now joins Wyoming, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania as one of the few states to reject such proposals, even as other states, including Utah and Arizona, push their bills forward for Senate debate.
Conclusion
Montana’s retreat from the Bitcoin reserve proposal not only illustrates the state’s cautious approach to cryptocurrency investments but also sets it apart from a growing number of states eager to engage with digital assets. As lawmakers fear the risks associated with Bitcoin, the broader trend among U.S. states remains focused on maximizing returns in innovative ways. With the legislative landscape shifting, Montana’s decision underscores a balancing act between safeguarding taxpayer interests and exploring unprecedented financial opportunities.
