Tracking Bitcoin bills: A state-by-state breakdown of US crypto legislation

Bitcoin’s rapid growth has prompted a flurry of legislative activity across the US, but information about these efforts is often fragmented. As of April 2025, over 110 Bitcoin and digital asset bills have been introduced across 35 US states.

These proposals range widely in scope, from authorizing state investments in Bitcoin to clarifying tax treatment and criminal laws for crypto. The lack of federal clarity in crypto regulation has further spurred states to take the initiative to define their own rules.

In this report, CryptoSlate examines the recent legislative efforts to compile and summarize Bitcoin legislation in the US state-by-state. We will first explain the division of federal vs. state law authority and the legislative process (what it means for a bill to be “in committee” or “in chamber”).

We then provide a regional breakdown of Bitcoin-related legislation, grouped by US Census regions, Northeast, South, Midwest, West, and Mountain West/Plains, highlighting each state’s relevant bills, their summaries, current status, and links to the bill texts or legislative pages. This in-depth overview serves as a valuable reference for understanding the current state of Bitcoin regulation in the US, given the patchwork of laws emerging across different jurisdictions.

Federal vs. State Authority

Federal and state governments in the United States can enact laws impacting Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, but their powers differ. The federal government (through Congress and federal agencies) has authority over nationwide issues such as securities regulation, money laundering, and currency taxation.

For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Treasury Department regulate aspects of crypto at the federal level. However, no comprehensive federal law explicitly addressing Bitcoin has been enacted, leaving many regulatory questions to the states. States cannot override federal law, but they can legislate in areas not preempted by federal authority. This means states often address Bitcoin in contexts like commercial law, state taxation, licensing of crypto businesses, and use of Bitcoin by state agencies.

For instance, New York’s well-known “BitLicense” regime for crypto companies is a state-level regulation, and states like Wyoming have passed laws defining property rights for digital assets, all within the bounds of state jurisdiction.

If Congress were to pass a broad crypto law, it could supersede conflicting state laws; however, absent that, states would be actively crafting their own rules. This has led to a patchwork of regulations. Some states embrace Bitcoin innovation (providing legal clarity or even investing public funds in crypto), while others take a cautious or minimal approach.

Understanding Bill Status – “In Committee” vs. “In Chamber”

Every bill must navigate a multi-step legislative process before becoming law. The process is similar in most state legislatures (and at the federal level in Congress).

When a bill is first introduced, it is referred to a relevant committee, a small group of legislators focused on a subject area (e.g., finance, technology, judiciary). Being “in committee” means the bill is under review and debate at this committee stage.

The committee may hold hearings, propose amendments, and eventually vote on whether to advance the bill. Many bills never advance past the committee, effectively “dying” there without approval before the legislative deadline. If the committee approves a bill, it moves to the floor of its legislative chamber (the full House or Senate of that state).

When a bill is “in chamber” (sometimes indicated as “Chamber 1” or “Chamber 2” for the first or second chamber), it means the entire legislative body is considering it. This could involve further debate, amendments, and, ultimately, a vote by all chamber members.

In a state with a bicameral legislature, a bill must pass both chambers (House and Senate) in identical form. For example, a bill might pass the House (after committee review, it’s voted on by the House, often noted as leaving “Chamber 1”), then move to the Senate.

In the second chamber, it typically passes through another committee (“Committee 2”) and then to the full chamber (“Chamber 2”) for a vote. If both chambers approve the bill, it is sent to the Governor. A bill that has passed all hurdles and received the Governor’s signature (or is allowed to become law without signature) is enacted, at which point it becomes law.

Bills listed as “Failed/Dead” did not pass before the end of the legislative session (or were voted down) and thus will not become law unless reintroduced in a future session.

The Northeast region, including New England and Mid-Atlantic states, has seen significant Bitcoin-related legislative activity in several states. Notably, New York and Rhode Island have been proactive with multiple proposals, while states like Maine and Vermont have, so far, no major Bitcoin legislation introduced. Below, we detail the states in the Northeast that have active or recently active Bitcoin bills:

Connecticut

Connecticut introduced a broad exploratory bill related to emerging blockchain technology. HB 5077, “An Act Concerning Web 3.0 Technologies and the Expansion of Broadband Internet Access,”  is a 2023 proposal that would establish a state task force to study Web3 and blockchain innovations. This bill touches on crypto as part of a broader look at web 3.0 tech and improving internet infrastructure.

Status: In Committee (the bill has been referred to the Committee and awaits further action).

Massachusetts

Massachusetts is considering two bills focused on digital assets and Bitcoin reserves. The first, H.3279, is titled “Allowing for fiscal resilience through strategic investment in stable digital financial asset.”

 This measure would allow the state to invest a portion of its funds in “stable digital financial assets” potentially including stablecoins or other digital assets, as a means of fiscal resilience. The second, S.1967, is an Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR) proposal “relative to a Bitcoin strategic reserve”. S.1967 would authorize Massachusetts to hold Bitcoin in a state reserve fund.

Status: Both bills are currently in their first chamber’s Committee (under review in Committee).

New Hampshire

New Hampshire, known for its tech-friendly environment, has several active bills related to digital assets. One is HB 302, an SBR bill “relative to enabling the state treasury to invest in precious metals and digital assets”. This bill would explicitly permit the New Hampshire Treasury to invest state funds in assets like gold and Bitcoin. Another key proposal is HB 310, which would “establish a commission to study the creation of a regulatory framework for stable tokens, tokenized real-world assets, and blockchain-based trust”. A third measure, HB 639, addresses legal aspects of crypto use by clarifying the“use of and disputes over blockchain and digital currencies” in state law (potentially covering smart contract enforceability or consumer protections in crypto transactions). Status: All three bills – HB 302, HB 310, and HB 639 – are in Committee in the New Hampshire House, undergoing initial review.

New Jersey

New Jersey has one bill on its docket: A. 2249, the “Digital Asset and Blockchain Technology Act.” The bill proposes a regulatory framework for digital asset businesses operating in the state, likely akin to a licensing regime or comprehensive guidelines for blockchain technology use. The bill shows that New Jersey wants to establish clear rules for companies dealing in digital assets and possibly consumer protections or industry oversight. Status: A.2249 is currently in Committee in the Assembly (early in the legislative process).

New York

New York has historically been a leader in crypto regulation (being one of the first to implement a crypto licensing system), and it continues to consider new legislation. Two significant bills are active: A.6515, which “establishes the offenses of virtual token fraud, illegal rug pulls, private key fraud and fraudulent failure to disclose an interest in virtual tokens.”  This is a comprehensive crypto consumer protection and anti-fraud bill – it creates new criminal definitions for fraudulent activities specific to the crypto space (for example, “rug pull” and misuse of private keys) to prosecute crypto-related fraud better.

The second is S.4728, which would “establish the New York State cryptocurrency and blockchain study task force.”  This task force is intended to study the effects of widespread crypto use and blockchain technology in New York and report findings to the government. Status: A.6515 is in an Assembly committee (awaiting committee approval). S.4728 has advanced further to Chamber 1 (having passed through Committee). S.4728 has passed the Senate and is awaiting consideration in the Assembly.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island has emerged as an active state on crypto legislation, with five bills introduced. One major bill is H.5564, which “establishes an economic growth blockchain (program), regulates virtual and digital assets, and establishes depository banks for these purposes.” It’s a comprehensive act to foster blockchain businesses,  possibly creating a special charter for a “digital asset depository bank” (similar to Wyoming’s SPDI banks concept) and setting up a regulatory framework to encourage blockchain-driven economic growth. Next, H.5810 is a joint resolution to create a legislative commission to study blockchain and crypto in Rhode Island. This commission would develop proposals to encourage a positive environment for blockchain tech, with reports due in 2026 and 2027 indicating a long-term study commitment.

Another important piece is H.5868, which “prohibits the compelled production of a private key” in any legal or administrative proceeding. In other words, this bill would protect individuals from being forced to divulge their crypto private keys, akin to how some states protect biometric passwords, a significant assurance for privacy and self-custody rights. Rhode Island also has its own SBR bill, H.6007, “Allows the state treasurer to acquire, hold, and invest uncommitted state funds in digital assets.” This would authorize a state Bitcoin/digital asset reserve for RRhode Island’s unallocated funds. Lastly, S.0451 (a Senate bill) would “exempt the sale of Bitcoin from state income tax if the sale is under $1,00.” His is a targeted tax relief measure intended to encourage small bitcoin transactions or investments by eliminating state capital gains tax on small sales.

Status: All of these bills (H5564, H5810, H5868, H6007, and S0451) are in Committee (early stage) in their respective chambers.

The southern region, spanning the Southeast and parts of the Southwest, has been very active in Bitcoin legislation. States like Texas, Florida, and Alabama are prominent in this region, often aiming to make crypto an approved investment for state funds or to clarify the legal status of digital assets. The South also includes states pushing “Bitcoin rights” legislation (protecting ownership and mining) and those establishing study committees.

Alabama

Alabama lawmakers introduced a package of bills in 2023 addressing various aspects of digital assets and crypto. There are five relevant bills in Alabama:

• HB 482 (House Bill 482) – an SBR bill title “d “State Treasurer, investment of funds in digital assets”. This bill would empower the Alabama State Treasurer to invest state funds in digital assets (including cryptocurrencies). It effectively authorizes a state Bitcoin/digital asset reserve, aiming to allow all of Alabama’s coffers to hold crypto as part of its investments. A companion measure in the upper chamber, SB 283 (Senate Bill 283), “State Treasurer, investment of funds in digital assets,” mirrors HB482, indicating both chambers are considering the idea of a state digital asset reserve.

• HB 483 – “Virtual currency, declares preemption of virtual currency or cryptocurrency regulation by the Legislature and exempts virtual currency from ad valorem tax.” This bill asserts that regulation of digital assets is to be done at the state level (preempting local governments from enacting their own rules) and also exempts digital assets from property taxes in Alabama.

• HB 484 – “Public blockchain, creation of; inclusion of certain state expenditures.” This proposal would mandate the creation of a public blockchain by the state, potentially for transparency in government spending. The phrasing suggests Alabama is considering using blockchain technology to record certain state expenditures.

• SB 17 – “Digital assets, prohibits the state from certain actions related to digital assets and exempts certain actions from classification as a security or money transfer”. This Senate bill would prevent the state from restricting the use of digital assets (perhaps protecting the right to use digital assets) and clarify that certain crypto-related activities are not to be regulated as securities or as money transmission.

Status: All five Alabama bills (HB482, SB283, HB483, HB484, SB17) are currently in committee in their originating chamber. As of the latest updates, none have passed the House or Senate floor votes yet. They remain at the committee review stage.

Florida

Florida has moved forward with a focused effort to authorize Bitcoin investments for state funds. Two companion bills – one in each chamber – encapsulate this effort:

• H.B. 487 – “Investments of Public Funds in Bitcoin”, and
• S.B. 550 – “Investments of Public Funds in Bitcoin”

Both bills are labeled SBR and are essentially identical proposals in the Florida House and Senate. They would allow Florida to invest public funds in Bitcoin, likely by amending state investment statutes to include Bitcoin as a permissible investment for certain state accounts or reserves. The existence of matching House and Senate bills suggests a coordinated push to establish a Florida Strategic Bitcoin Reserve or at least the legal authority for one.

Status: Both HB 487 and SB 550 have been introduced and are in committee (early stage). They are pending committee hearings/approval in their respective chambers.

Georgia

Georgia’s legislature introduced measures aimed at allowing state treasury investments in Bitcoin and studying digital currency. Key bills include:

• SB 178 – “State Depository Board; allow the state treasurer to invest in Bitcoin.” This is an SBR bill proposing to authorize Georgia’s State Depository Board and Treasurer to invest state funds in Bitcoin.

• SB 228 – “State Depositories; State Depository Board to allow the state treasurer to invest in bitcoin”. SB228 is very similar in intent (and even in wording) to SB178, in fact, the two bills appear to overlap considerably. Both are Senate bills marked as SBR. It could be that SB228 was a later vehicle or amendment encompassing SB178’s content, or one of them might be a backup or a broader version.

• SR 391 – “Senate Study Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Currency”. This is a Senate Resolution (not a bill) to create a study committee focused on AI and digital currency. It would convene lawmakers and experts to explore the implications of AI and digital assets (including Bitcoin) and recommend possible legislation. The inclusion of “Digital Currency” in the committee’s scope means Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies would be studied for potential future policy.

Status: SB 178 and SB 228 are both in the committee stage in the Senate (Committee 1). The fact that two similar SBR bills exist suggests strong interest, though only one would ultimately need to pass. SR 391, being a legislative resolution for a study, has been introduced and would need approval (likely by the Senate Rules or a similar committee) to formally create the committee. As of now, SR 391 is listed as Introduced (awaiting committee consideration).

Kentucky

The state introduced three bills:

• HB 376 – “AN ACT relating to state financial practices.” Labeled as an SBR, this bill permits Kentucky’s state investment authorities to allocate a portion of state funds into Bitcoin or other digital assets (i.e., establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve). It targets the state’s “excess funds,” allowing up to a certain percentage to be invested in digital assets.
• HB 377 – “AN ACT relating to digital assets.” This bill clarifies that citizens have the right to control their own crypto (self-custody) and sets rules for banks or businesses dealing with digital assets. It defines terms and establishes that digital assets are personal property not to be interfered with.
• HB 701 – “AN ACT relating to blockchain digital assets.” This bill was famously dubbed the “Bitcoin Rights” bill, and it has been enacted into law. HB701 enshrines certain rights for Bitcoin and digital asset users in Kentucky. Specifically, it protects the right to self-custody digital assets and the right to run blockchain nodes, and it prevents discriminatory local regulations against crypto mining. HB701 also clarifies that crypto mining is not to be treated as a money transmitter activity or as a securities offering. In March 2025, Kentucky’s Governor signed HB701 into law, making Kentucky one of the first states to guarantee such crypto-specific rights by statute.

Status: HB 376 and HB 377 were progressing through the legislature in 2025; they were in House committees as of April 4. HB 701 was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor on March 24, 2025, and is Enacted (now law).

Maryland

Maryland has been relatively quiet on crypto legislation, with one significant proposal recently: HB 1389, the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act of Maryland.” This is an SBR bill that would establish a Bitcoin reserve for the state of Maryland. It authorizes the State Treasurer or a relevant financial authority to invest in Bitcoin as part of state funds.

Status: HB 1389 is in committee (House committee) and has not yet advanced to a floor vote.

North Carolina

North Carolina introduced a suite of bills in 2025 aimed at modernizing state laws to accommodate Bitcoin and digital assets. The state has five bills on the roster:

• H 92 – “NC Digital Assets Investments Act”. This is an SBR-designated bill that would allow NorCarolina’sa’s state treasury or other state funds to invest in digital assets (including Bitcoin). It essentially seeks to permit North Carolina to hold Bitcoin as part of state investments.

• H 506 – “2025 State Investment Modernization Act. AB”. This House bill (with the “AB” suffix indicating it may have been agency-backed or an appropriations bill) is also tagged SBR. It appears to update state investment rules in 2025, likely to include digital assets. The identical title to S709 (described below) suggests a companion measure in the House.

• S 327 – “NC Bitcoin Reserve and Investment Act”. This is a Senate bill explicitly aimed at creating a Bitcoin Reserve for North Carolina. It would authorize the state to invest in Bitcoin and possibly establish a dedicated reserve fund or program for Bitcoin investments.

• S 667 – “Government Modernization”. Unlike the others, this bill’s title is broad (and not obviously crypto-related from the title alone). However, given that is included in the Bitcoin laws tracker, S667 likely contains provisions relating to digital assets or blockchain in the context of government modernization.

• S 709 – “2025 State Investment Modernization Act. AB”. This Senate bill shares the title with H506 and is marked SBR. It likely is the Senate counterpart to H506, aiming to update investment statutes to include digital assets. Often, “Modernization Act” bills include multiple changes; here, the focus is likely on allowing new asset classes (like Bitcoin) for state investments.

Status: All these bills (H92, H506, S327, S667, S709) are early in the process. H92 is in the House Committee; H506 has just been introduced (awaiting committee referral). S327 is introduced in the Senate. S667 is in the Senate Committee (Chamber 1), and S709 is introduced. None have reached floor votes yet.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma is pursuing both a Bitcoin reserve and innovative Bitcoin use cases in payments:

• HB 1203 – “The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act; definitions; investments.” This is Oklahoma’s SBR proposal, comprehensively named the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act.” HB1203 would authorize the Oklahoma State Treasurer to invest certain state funds in Bitcoin and other digital assets (possibly including some portion of state pension or retirement funds). In March 2025, this bill passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives in a 77–15 vote. After House passage, HB1203 moved to the state Senate, where it is currently under review by a Senate committee. It needs Senate approval next.

• SB 325– “Authorizing employee compensation to be made in Bitcoin; authorizing vendor payments to be made in Bitcoin; prescribing procedures.” This Senate bill would allow Oklahoma to pay state employees in Bitcoin and also allow state agencies to pay contractors or vendors in Bitcoin, should they choose to accept it. It outlines procedures for implementing such payments, ensuring they are done securely and addressing volatility. If passed, SB325 would make Oklahoma one of the first states to explicitly permit salaries and vendor payments in digital assets.

Status: HB1203 is currently in the Senate committee stage (having cleared the House). SB325 is in Committee (Committee 1, Senate). Neither is law yet, but HB1203, in particular, is far along.

South Carolina

South Carolina has two bills:

• H 4256– “Strategic Digital Assets Reserve Act”. This is an SBR initiative for South Carolina, allowing the state to create a Digital Assets Reserve. It would authorize the State Treasurer to purchase and hold digital assets (e.g., Bitcoin) as part of state reserves. The title uses “Digital Assets” rather than specifically Bitcoin, implying it could cover a broader range, but in practical terms, Bitcoin is likely a primary focus.
• S 163 – “Cryptocurrency”. This Senate bill has a very broad title, which suggests it could be a general regulatory or definitional act. Given it has progressed to the Chamber 1 stage, S163 passed out of committee in the Senate and was debated on the Senate floor.

Status: H4256 is in committee in the House (Committee 1). S163 has advanced to Chamber 1 (meaning it’s on the Senate floor; it may have even passed the Senate). If S163 passes the Senate, it would proceed to the House committee for further consideration.

Illinois

Illinois has four pending crypto bills:

HB 750 – “REGULATION-TECH”. The title is generic, but this designation means a placeholder or shell bill related to regulation that can be amended with detailed provisions. It was introduced in the House and likely pertains to crypto regulation (the short title suggests a technical regulatory change).

HB 1844 – “STRATEGIC BITCOIN RESERVE”. As the name indicates, this is an SBR bill to establish an Illinois Bitcoin Reserve. HB1844 would authorize the state to allocate some funds into Bitcoin as part of its financial assets. Illinois’s consideration of this is significant, as it’s one of the larger states by economy.

SB 711 – “REGULATION-TECH”. This is the Senate counterpart to HB750 – another regulatory framework placeholder/vehicle. SB711 has progressed to the Chamber 1 stage, meaning it made it out of committee and onto the Senate floor. It could be a vehicle for negotiating the content of a crypto regulatory bill.

SB 1797 – “DIGITAL ASSETS & CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT”. This Senate bill appears to be a comprehensive Digital Assets and Consumer Protection Act, suggesting an Illinois version of a “BitLicense” or similar regulatory regime. It likely aims to set guidelines for companies dealing in digital assets to protect consumers (registration, disclosures, antifraud measures, etc.). SB1797 is listed as Introduced, so it’s at the beginning of the process.

Status: HB750 and HB1844 are in House committees. SB711 has passed the committee stage and is in the Senate (Chamber 1); SB1797 has been introduced and is awaiting committee action.

Indiana

Indiana introduced two House bills:

• HB 1156 – “Digital asset mining.” This bill addresses crypto mining in the state. It could set rules preventing local bans on mining, define it as a permitted use (perhaps in industrial zones), or provide incentives. For instance, states such as Montana and Arkansas have considered laws to ensure crypto mining is legal and not unfairly discriminated against by zoning or fees.
• HB 1322 – “Blockchain technology.” This bill creates legal recognition for blockchain records or smart contracts in Indiana state law. Many states have passed “blockchain technology” acts to recognize electronic signatures secured via blockchain or to form study committees. Given its progression to Committee 2, HB1322 might have already passed the House and moved to the Senate committee for consideration.

Status: HB1156 is in a House committee (Committee 1). HB1322 advanced from the first committee to a second committee (possibly indicating it passed the House and went to a Senate committee or required multiple referrals).

Iowa

Iowa has been active with legislation addressing both state investments and consumer interactions with crypto ATMs:

• HF 246 (House File 246) – “A bill for an act relating to the investment of public moneys in digital assets and precious metals.”. This is an SBR-type bill from the House authorizing Iowa to invest public funds in digital assets (like Bitcoin) and possibly gold/silver. It treats crypto similarly to precious metals as an investable reserve asset.
• SF 403 (Senate File 403) – “A bill for an act relating to the investment of public moneys in digital assets and precious metals.”. SF403 is the Senate companion to HF246 – identical in language – indicating a coordinated bicameral effort to allow state investments in Bitcoin and precious metals. Both HF246 and SF403 aim to add digital assets to the list of authorized investments for state treasury or pension funds.
• SF 449 – “A bill for an act relating to digital financial asset transaction kiosks and including penalties, and effective date and applicability provisions.” This bill deals with crypto kiosks or ATMs. It likely establishes regulations or consumer protections for Bitcoin ATMs – for example, requiring certain disclosures, fee caps, or penalties for non-compliance. It was noted as “Formerly SSB 1142,” meaning it originated as a Senate Study Bill (draft) and became SF449.

Status: HF246 and SF403 are both in their respective Committees (House and Senate) and are essentially mirror bills moving in parallel. SF449 is in a Senate committee (Committee 1). These bills have not yet passed floor votes. If Iowa enacts HF246/SF403, it would join the states, enabling crypto investments for public funds. SF449, if passed, would make Iowa one of the few states specifically regulating crypto ATMs.

Kansas

Kansas is considering a unique angle for Bitcoin investment via its public pension system. The primary bill is:

• SB 34 – “Authorizing the KPERS board of trustees to invest in bitcoin exchange-traded products and providing requirements, limitations, and definitions regarding such investments.” If available, this bill would allow the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) to invest in Bitcoin exchange-traded products, such as a Bitcoin ETF (exchange-traded fund). It sets conditions and limits on such investments.

Status: SB 34 was introduced and is currently in committee. Kansas’s legislative session will determine if KPERS will be permitted to proceed with this investment option.

Michigan

Michigan’s legislature introduced bills dealing with zoning for mining and establishing a Bitcoin reserve:

• HB 4085 – “Land use: zoning and growth management; mining cryptocurrency inside of an area that is zoned for industrial use.” This bill changes state zoning law to allow crypto mining in industrial zones. It ensures that if an area is zoned industrial, crypto mining operations cannot be prohibited there by local authorities. The amendment to the zoning code (adding section 515) likely preempts local bans and secures the right to mine in appropriate zones. This is in response to some communities restricting Bitcoin mining due to noise or energy concerns; Michigan’s bill would standardize that mining is an approved industrial activity.
• HB 4087 – HB4087 is explicitly an SBR bill to establish a Michigan Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. It would authorize and direct the state to create a Bitcoin reserve as part of its state finances. The bill amends an existing finance law, adding a new section for this purpose. If passed, it would allow Michigan’s Department of Treasury or another authority to allocate funds to Bitcoin investments.

Status: HB 4085 was introduced and is in the early stage (no committee action yet). HB 4087 is in its first House committee. Michigan will need to advance these through committee and floor votes in the House and then send them to the Senate. So far, they remain under consideration.

Minnesota

Minnesota put forward the “Minnesota Bitcoin Act” in both chambers:

• HF 2946 – This is an omnibus-style bill that does several things: It proposes the Minnesota Bitcoin Act, which would allow the state to accept payments in cryptocurrencies (possibly taxes or fees paid in crypto), authorize the State Board of Investment to invest in cryptocurrencies (creating a Bitcoin reserve for Minnesota) and also adjust tax laws to account for crypto (perhaps exempting certain transactions or clarifying tax treatment).
• SF 2661 – SF2661 is the Senate companion, titled more succinctly but intended to accomplish the same as HF2946. Both are labeled SBR and share the goal of making Minnesota a crypto-forward state.

Status: HF 2946 is in a House committee (Committee 1). SF 2661 is in a Senate committee (Committee 1). They were introduced in 2023. As of now, they are pending in committee.

Missouri

Missouri has introduced multiple crypto bills:

• HB 1136 – “Digital Assets Authorization Act”. This House bill sets a broad legal framework recognizing digital assets in Missouri law.
• HB 1217 – “Bitcoin Strategic Reserve Fund.” This is Missouri’s SBR proposal, explicitly forming a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve Fund. It authorizes the State Treasurer to hold Bitcoin on behalf of the state.
• SB 309 – “Creates new provisions relating to digital assets.” A Senate bill similar in spirit to HB1136 aiming to update Missouri law for digital assets (possibly clarifying the status of crypto under the Uniform Commercial Code or other statutes).
• SB 614 – “Creates new provisions relating to digital assets.” Notably tagged as SBR, SB614 is the Senate’s version of the Bitcoin reserve concept. The identical description suggests SB614 might originally have been intended as a reserve bill (since it’s tagged SBR), but its summary wasn’t entirely distinct from SB309 in the listing. It’s possible that SB614 will include establishing a Bitcoin reserve via “new provisions” in state law.
• SB 779 – “Creates new provisions governing virtual currency.” This Senate bill addresses consumer protection or business regulation of digital assets (for example, requiring crypto ATM operators to register or define virtual currency in money transmitter laws). Introduced later in the session, it might complement the other bills by covering additional ground, such as taxing or exempting crypto, etc.

Status: All listed Missouri bills (HB1136, HB1217, SB309, SB614, SB779) are currently in committee at the chamber of origin, except SB779, which has been Introduced. They have not yet seen floor votes.

Ohio

Ohio has put forward three proposals touching on reserves and a “Blockchain Basics” concept:

• HB 18 – “Enact the Ohio Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve Act”. This is an SBR bill in the Ohio House to create an Ohio Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve. It would authorize holding Bitcoin (and possibly other top cryptocurrencies) in Ohio’s treasury or rainy-day fund up to a specific limit.
• HB 116 – “Enact the Ohio Blockchain Basics Act.” Titled the “Blockchain Basics Act,” HB116 aims to establish fundamental legal definitions and protections for blockchain use. The word “Basics” implies that it covers foundational issues, potentially an educational or framework bill to prime Ohio law for more blockchain integration.
• SB 57 – “Enact the Ohio Bitcoin Reserve Act”. This Senate bill is another SBR proposal specifically focused on Bitcoin (as opposed to HB18’s “crypto” reserve, which could include multiple assets). SB57 would create an Ohio Bitcoin Reserve, which is presumably very similar in goal to HB18. The presence of both bills indicates bicameral interest; they could be harmonized into one policy.

Status: All three measures are at the committee stage. HB18 and HB116 were referred to House committees. SB57 is in a Senate committee. As of now, none have been passed by a chamber.

Summary (Midwest): The Midwest’s legislative landscape for Bitcoin and crypto is varied. Midwestern states like Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri are pushing for Bitcoin reserves or at least the authority to invest in crypto for state funds. Simultaneously, states such as Illinois (through SB1797) and Missouri (HB1136/SB300-series) are looking at comprehensive regulatory frameworks for digital assets to protect consumers and integrate blockchain into state law. Indiana and Michigan target crypto mining and blockchain contracts, ensuring their states welcome miners and legally recognize blockchain records. North Dakota and South Dakota showed interest but withdrew, with their investment bills failing this round.

For the purposes of this report, the Western region covers the Pacific Coast states (and we include Texas here due to its prominence; although Texas is geographically Southwest, it is sometimes grouped in the “West South Central” division). The West region is notable for tech hubs like California and Washington, which have a history of tech regulation, and for resource-rich states like Texas, which are embracing Bitcoin mining and treasury investments.

California

California, home to Silicon Valley, is considering three bills:

• AB 1052 – “Digital assets.” This Assembly Bill likely proposed a legal definition for digital assets or certain regulatory powers to the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) over crypto. The terse title suggests it could follow previous years’ attempts to create a California licensing regime for crypto businesses (similar to New York’s BitLicense).
• AB 1180 – “Department of Financial Protection and Innovation: state payments.” This bill seems to involve the DFPI and state payments – potentially allowing California to accept digital assets for state services or study doing so.
• SB 97 – “Digital financial assets.” A Senate Bill parallel to AB1052 focusing on digital financial asset regulation. It might be the Senate’s version of establishing licensing, addressing stablecoins, etc.

Status: All three bills – AB1052, AB1180, and SB97 – were in Committee 1 (the first committee of their respective chamber). They were introduced and had not passed out of committee at the last update. It’s worth mentioning that California’s approach tends to be cautious and deliberative; previous attempts at crypto regulation in CA were paused to wait for federal clarity.

Oregon

Oregon saw two bills touching on blockchain and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC):

• HB 2071 – “Relating to blockchains.” This House bill is an initiative by Oregon’s state government to recognize and implement blockchain solutions. It might establish legal validity for blockchain records or enable a pilot program for blockchain in government.
• SB 167 – “Relating to the Uniform Commercial Code.” This Senate bill was an attempt to amend the UCC in Oregon, likely to accommodate digital assets. In 2022-2023, several states considered UCC updates (based on model law revisions) to define “controllable electronic records,” which include cryptocurrencies. However, some controversy arose because the initial UCC draft excluded central bank digital currencies and potentially affected crypto’s classification as money.

Status: HB 2071 was in a House committee. According to the latest information, SB 167 was introduced and has not left the committee. If SB167 was the UCC update, it may have stalled due to broader debates.

Texas

Texas has been one of the most active states in Bitcoin legislation, reflecting its status as a center for Bitcoin mining and a pro-crypto political climate:

• HB 1598 – This House bill would create a Texas Bitcoin Reserve managed by the State Treasury and set guidelines for state agencies’ handling and custody of cryptocurrencies.
• HB 2798 – This is a consumer protection bill focusing on Bitcoin ATMs (kiosks). It requires operators of crypto ATMs to provide certain disclosures to users and possibly obtain licenses.
• HB 4258 – Another SBR bill allowing not just the state Comptroller (who manages state funds) but also political subdivisions (counties, cities, etc.) to invest certain monies in crypto. This broadens the scope beyond HB1598; it says local governments in Texas could also hold Bitcoin under defined conditions.
• HB 5352 – “The establishment of the State Blockchain Technology Pilot Program by the Department of Information Resources.” This bill would create a pilot program to explore blockchain technology within the state government. The Department of Information Resources (DIR) would likely run proofs-of-concept for using blockchain in state operations (e.g., record keeping, identity, logistics).
• SB 21 – “Relating to the establishment and administration of the Texas Strategic Bitcoin Reserve…”. SB21 is the Senate version of establishing the Texas Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, similar to HB1598. It provides the structure for investing in Bitcoin and authorizes the State Comptroller to manage that reserve and other state funds accordingly. SB21 is a high-profile bill, as its passage would make Texas an official Bitcoin-holding state.
• SB 778 – “Relating to the establishment and administration of the Texas Strategic Bitcoin Reserve; making an appropriation.” SB778 is another SBR bill, very similar to SB21. It also sets up a Texas Bitcoin Reserve and even mentions making an appropriation, implying it would allocate a certain budget or initial funding to buy Bitcoin for the reserve.
• SB 1498 – “Relating to civil asset forfeiture of digital currency or other similar property.”
  This bill addresses how digital currencies are treated in civil asset forfeiture.
• SB 1941 – “Relating to certain reports required to be filed by digital asset service providers.” This introduces reporting requirements for digital asset service providers in Texas. This could mean exchanges or crypto companies must file reports (possibly financial condition reports or disclosure of any Texas user data breaches) with a state agency.
• SB 2922 –”Relating to the issuance and regulation of an oil-backed stablecoin; authorizing a fee; authorizing an administrative penalty.”  This interesting bill proposes a state-issued (or state-regulated) stablecoin backed by oil. Texas, a significant oil producer, is considering creating a crypto stablecoin token whose value is supported by oil reserves or revenues.

Status: The statuses vary, but most Texas bills were introduced in the 2023 session and are in either House or Senate committees:

• HB1598, HB2798, HB4258, and HB5352 were in House Committee (Committee 1) or Introduced (HB5352 was introduced without committee referral yet)
• SB21 was in Committee 2 (meaning it passed the Senate committee and moved to the House committee, or vice versa).
• SB778 was in Committee 1 (Senate Committee)
• SB1498 was Introduced (in Senate)
• SB1941 was in Committee 1
• SB2922 was Introduced

Summary (West): In the West region, Texas stands out for the volume and ambition of its Bitcoin legislation, from creating a state Bitcoin reserve to exploring an oil-backed stablecoin. California is working on a regulatory structure for the crypto industry, reflecting its consumer protection focus. Western states present a dichotomy: the tech-centric coastal state (California) is cautious, studying, and regulating, while a resource-rich state (Texas) boldly integrates Bitcoin into government operations and financial strategy.

The Mountain West/Plains region comprises states in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains that have been very proactive in crypto legislation. These include Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Colorado, North/South Dakota (Plains), and others.

Arizona

Arizona has one of the largest portfolios of crypto bills covering everything from state finances to legal tender:

• HB 2324 – “Forfeiture; digital assets; reserve fund.” This bill deals with asset forfeiture: it proposes that seized digital assets (from crimes) could be placed into a Digital Assets Reserve Fund rather than just auctioned off.
• HB 2325 – “Arizona blockchain budget initiative; appropriation.” This allocates funds (an appropriation) for a blockchain initiative – possibly funding a state blockchain pilot or a department to explore blockchain tech in government operations.
• HB 2906 – “Financial technology; digital assets program.” It likely establishes a fintech sandbox or program specifically for digital assets. Arizona already has a fintech sandbox; this bill might expand it to cover crypto projects or create a separate program to promote digital asset innovation in Arizona (like encouraging blockchain startups with lighter regulation under oversight).
• SB 1015 – “Blockchain technology; tax; fee; prohibition.” It prohibits local governments from taxing crypto or charging extra fees for blockchain use. It might also forbid certain blockchain-based taxes.
• SB 1024 – “State agencies; payments; cryptocurrency.” This bill would allow Arizona state agencies to accept cryptocurrencies for payments. For example, paying state fees, taxes, or permits with Bitcoin or other crypto. If passed, citizens could transact with the state in crypto, which would be a significant adoption step.
• SB 1025 – “Public monies; investment; virtual currency.” SB1025 is an SBR bill allowing public monies to be invested in virtual currency. This authorizes the state (and possibly local governments or pensions) to treat crypto as an investment asset for funds.
• SB 1062 – “Legal tender; cryptocurrency.” This proposal would recognize digital assets (like Bitcoin) as legal tender in Arizona. It aims to make crypto a lawful form of money for all debts and payments in the state. While states cannot declare something legal tender for debts under the US Constitution (only Congress can coin money), the bill might be a statement or a way to allow crypto to be used in contracts and state business as if it were money. Similar bills were introduced in prior years in AZ but were not passed.
• SB 1373 – “Digital assets strategic reserve fund”. SB1373 is an SBR bill to create a Digital Assets Reserve Fund for Arizona, allowing the state to hold a reserve of Bitcoin and possibly other digital assets.
• SCR 1005 – “State retirement systems; digital assets.” This Senate Concurrent Resolution allows state retirement systems to invest in digital assets. As a resolution, it may not change the law by itself but expresses the legislature’s intent. It could also be a referral to voters if it amends the state constitution for pensions.

Status: SB1025 and SB1373 passed the Senate and are in the House (Chamber 2). SCR1005 passed the Senate (Chamber 1). Others like SB1024, SB1062, and SB1015 were in Senate Committee 2 (meaning they likely passed one committee and perhaps the full Senate, moving to the House committee). House bills HB2324 and HB2325 were in House committees, while HB2906 progressed to Committee 2 (meaning it went to the Senate).

Montana

Montana advanced several crypto bills in the past two years:

• HB 453 – “Require DOR to accept income tax payments in digital assets.” This would have required the Department of Revenue (DOR) to accept state tax payments in crypto. Status: In House Committee. It was introduced and debated but did not pass in the session, so it remains pending.
• SB 265 – “Revise cryptocurrency laws to create Financial Freedom and Innovation Act.” This Senate bill aims to revise Montana’s crypto laws and create a Financial Freedom and Innovation Act, a comprehensive act promoting crypto business (the title echoes Wyoming’s “Financial Innovation” terminology). Status: In Senate Committee 2, indicating it moved through some process but not yet law.
• SB 330 – “Create a Montana blockchain and digital innovation task force.” This establishes a task force for blockchain innovation, bringing stakeholders together to study and recommend policies. Status: It advanced to Chamber 2, meaning the Senate passed it, and it went to the House. Montana’s legislature passed a joint resolution creating this task force, signed by the Governor in 2023, so SB330 is effectively adopted.

Utah

Utah made significant progress with HB 230, “Blockchain and Digital Innovation Amendments.” This bill initially contained an SBR provision and was amended to remove the Bitcoin reserve clause but kept several crypto-friendly measures. As enacted, HB230 does the following:

• Protects the right of individuals to self-custody digital assets (hold their own keys)
• Guarantees the right to run a node for blockchain networks and to mine/stake digital assets at home, as long as it doesn’t violate existing laws
• Excludes crypto mining from money transmitter rules and clarifies it’s not a securities offering

It’s a “crypto bill of rights,” similar to Kentucky’s HB701, minus the reserve part. Initially, HB230 had a clause to let the Treasurer invest up to 5% of certain funds in Bitcoin, but the Utah Senate removed that part before passing the bill.

Status: Enacted. Utah’s HB230 passed both chambers (with amendment) and was signed into law. It took effect on March 25, 2025, making Utah one of the most crypto-friendly states regarding legal rights.

New Mexico

New Mexico proposed SB 275, the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act.” This is a straight SBR bill for New Mexico, allowing the state to invest in and hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset. Status: SB275 was in the Senate committee (Committee 1). It has not yet passed. New Mexico’s legislature was in a 60-day session in 2024; SB275 was introduced but didn’t become law that session.

Summary (Mountain West/Plains): This region has been at the forefront of pro-Bitcoin policy. Utah and Kentucky enacted landmark crypto rights laws in 2025, reinforcing the rights to own and use Bitcoin. Arizona is on the cusp of allowing tax payments in crypto and establishing reserves, pending House approvals. Wyoming and Montana attempted Bitcoin reserves but faced vetoes – showing some governors’ caution despite legislative support. Colorado administratively accepts crypto for taxes (though not legislatively mandated), and Nevada/Idaho remained quiet. North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and New Mexico all had Bitcoin reserve bills introduced; some failed, and others remain under consideration.

In the Northeast, states like New York and Rhode Island are focused on consumer protection and fraud prevention while exploring Bitcoin investment and task forces on digital assets.

Southern legislatures, from Alabama to Oklahoma, proposed strategic Bitcoin reserves and clarified consumer and business rights. Kentucky notably enacted a “crypto rights” law, and Oklahoma advanced SBR bills.

In the Midwest, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri propose reserves and regulatory frameworks, while states such as Indiana and Michigan tackle zoning and mining rights, reflecting a balance of innovation and caution.

The West is typified by California’s careful approach to licensing and regulation and Texas’s ambitious agenda, including Bitcoin reserves, crypto mining protections, and even a proposed oil-backed stablecoin.

Finally, the Mountain West/Plains stands out for pioneering pro-Bitcoin policies: Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico debate reserves, Utah enacted strong self-custody rights, and Wyoming remains a leader despite recent vetoes.