- Montana’s House rejected the Bitcoin reserve bill with a 42-58 vote, citing financial risks.
- Lawmakers opposed using taxpayer funds for crypto investments, calling it speculative and risky.
- Montana joins North Dakota, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania in rejecting Bitcoin reserve proposals.
The Montana State legislators had to take a decisive vote in considering Bitcoin as a reserve asset. While supporters saw it as a bold step toward financial innovation, the critics feared reckless speculation with taxpayer funds. After heated discussions, the Montana House rejected House Bill 429 in its second reading with a 42-58 vote. The rejection follows concerns over risk, oversight, and the use of taxpayer funds for cryptocurrency investments.
Many lawmakers objected to the proposal, calling it speculative. Representative Steven Kelly stated that investing in digital assets was too risky. “It’s still taxpayer money, and we’re responsible for it,” he said. Lawmakers also questioned how the investments would be tracked and monitored.
The proposed bill is aimed to create a special account to invest in precious metals, stablecoins, and digital assets. This applies specifically to assets with a market cap above $750 billion, with Bitcoin being the only asset meeting that threshold. However, some lawmakers opposed giving the Board of Investments the power to invest in cryptocurrencies.
Representative Bill Mercer criticized the bill, stating, “I did not come here to give the Board of Investment discretion to invest in non-fungible tokens and cryptocurrencies.” Another lawmaker added, “This smacks of speculation to me.”
An amendment proposed using interest from ARPA funds instead of the General Fund to finance the investments. However, lawmakers questioned if those funds could legally be used. The amendment failed, reducing the bill’s chances of passing.
Supporters of House Bill 429 argued that Bitcoin could provide strong returns. Representative Lee Demming stated, “We owe it to the taxpayers to get the highest return on that money.” Curtis Schomer, the bill’s sponsor, warned that sticking to bonds would erode purchasing power.
Related: Florida Bitcoin Bill Proposes 10% State Reserve Allocation
Representative Steve Fitzpatrick also backed the proposal, suggesting Bitcoin could help generate additional revenue. “We can make a return to the taxpayer and give more money back, cut taxes, and provide fiscal relief,” he said.
Despite Republican support in earlier stages, the final vote saw many party members joining the opposition. The bill previously passed Montana’s Business and Labor Committee on February 19 with a 12-8 vote.
Montana now joins North Dakota, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania, which have also turned down similar proposals. However, 19 other states, including Arizona, Texas, and Kentucky, still have their Bitcoin bills under review.
Meanwhile, Utah’s Bitcoin reserve bill has seen the most progress. It recently passed the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee and is headed for further readings. Montana’s rejection means any future Bitcoin reserve bill must be reintroduced in a new legislative session.
