Montana’s House Bill No. 429, which sought to establish a state-backed Bitcoin reserve, has failed to move forward after a crucial vote in the state’s House of Representatives.
The bill was rejected by a 41-59 vote on February 22, dealing a significant blow to efforts to integrate Bitcoin into state financial reserves.
🚨 MONTANA Update:
Bitcoin Reserve bill HB 429 failed to pass a second reading in the Montana House. It is now effectively dead.
The vote was 41 – 59. It was largely partisan, but many Republicans voted against the bill.
ANALYSIS:
HB 429 failed in the House, largely due to…
View replies
190
Reply
Copy link
While proponents argued that the legislation would diversify Montana’s financial strategy, opposition stemmed largely from fiscal conservatives who deemed Bitcoin too volatile for taxpayer-backed investments.
With this rejection, Montana has stepped back from joining a growing number of US states exploring Bitcoin as a reserve asset.
Montana’s $50M Bitcoin plan rejected
The proposed legislation would have created a special revenue account allowing Montana to invest in precious metals, stablecoins, and digital assets, including Bitcoin.
The bill specified that eligible cryptocurrencies must have a minimum market capitalization of $750 billion over the past year.
If approved, the state treasurer would have allocated $50 million to the Bitcoin reserve by mid-July 2025.
Despite passing through the House Business and Labor Committee on February 19, the bill faced strong opposition during its second reading.
A key concern among lawmakers was the potential risk of using taxpayer funds to invest in digital assets.
Republican lawmakers largely opposed the measure, with many arguing that the bill lacked clarity on how state funds would be managed.
Representative Jane Gillette expressed doubts about the bill’s objectives, stating that it did not sufficiently outline how the funds would be spent.
Representative Steven Kelly, another opponent, described cryptocurrency investments as “way too risky,” arguing that the state has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer money.
Other lawmakers, such as Lee Demming, supported the initiative, contending that Montana should consider Bitcoin as part of its financial strategy.
Supporters argued that the state’s reserves should include digital assets to maximize long-term returns, mirroring similar efforts in other states.
US states split on Bitcoin reserves
Montana’s rejection of the Bitcoin reserve bill highlights the broader divide in state-level cryptocurrency policy.
While some states have embraced digital assets, others remain cautious.
So far, Utah, Arizona, and Oklahoma have advanced similar legislative efforts, but no state has fully implemented a Bitcoin reserve strategy.
Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Action Fund, noted that Montana was one of several states considering Bitcoin as part of its financial strategy.
His organization had been actively working with state legislators, including Representative Curtis Schomer and Senator Daniel Zolnikov, to push for Bitcoin-related policies.
Despite this setback, Bitcoin advocates continue to lobby for state-level adoption.
Proponents argue that Bitcoin’s limited supply and decentralized nature make it a strong hedge against inflation.
Critics point to Bitcoin’s volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and environmental concerns as reasons to avoid state-backed investments in the asset.
Fiscal conservatives oppose crypto investments
The rejection of Montana’s Bitcoin reserve bill aligns with broader concerns among fiscal conservatives regarding cryptocurrency investments.
Lawmakers opposing the bill cited Bitcoin’s price volatility and the lack of clear regulatory frameworks as key reasons for their stance.
Representative Bill Mercer argued that using taxpayer money to invest in Bitcoin would be an unnecessary risk.
He noted that public funds should be protected from speculative investments, especially given Bitcoin’s history of significant price fluctuations.
This pushback reflects growing skepticism among state legislators about government involvement in cryptocurrency investments.
While some states have introduced pro-Bitcoin policies, resistance from fiscal conservatives remains a major hurdle.
With Montana’s decision, the debate over state-level Bitcoin reserves continues.
While the bill’s failure marks a setback for Bitcoin adoption in the state, ongoing legislative efforts across the US indicate that the discussion is far from over.
The post Montana lawmakers reject Bitcoin reserve bill: here’s why appeared first on Invezz
