Republican Bitcoin Reserve Bill Faces Democrat Majority in Massachusetts
According to Cointelegraph, the Massachusetts Joint Revenue Committee scheduled a hearing to review legislation establishing a state Bitcoin strategic reserve. The bill, introduced by Republican Senator Peter Durant in February 2025, seeks to deposit seized digital assets into a reserve fund. The legislation allows the state treasury to invest up to 10% of the Commonwealth Stabilization Fund in cryptocurrencies.
The hearing follows a broader trend of Republican lawmakers across multiple states proposing Bitcoin reserve initiatives. Massachusetts remains one of 15 states pursuing such legislation, though passage appears uncertain. Democrats currently control both chambers of the state legislature with supermajority numbers and hold the governorship.
State Treasuries Compete for Digital Asset Holdings
States are moving ahead of federal Bitcoin reserve plans despite political challenges. CoinDesk reports that 16 state legislatures are reviewing bills to establish digital asset reserves or direct retirement fund investments into crypto. Two states already allocated portions of public employee retirement portfolios to Bitcoin exchange-traded funds. Michigan and Wisconsin pension managers invested over $160 million in Bitcoin ETF shares during early 2025.
Several proposals would instruct state treasurers to spend up to 10% of public funds on strategic reserves. Qualifying assets must maintain market capitalizations exceeding $500 billion or $750 billion, depending on the state. These timelines could result in state purchases occurring before any federal reserve begins operations.
We reported in February that 15 states introduced Bitcoin reserve legislation following President Trump's election victory and continued support for making America "the crypto capital of the planet." Pennsylvania led this movement by introducing the first state-level bill in November 2024. The list has grown to include Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
Political and Financial Risks Shape Reserve Debate
The Massachusetts bill faces significant political obstacles beyond Democratic control. Fortune notes that critics warn about Bitcoin's price volatility and risk exposure for public funds. David Krause, a finance professor at Marquette University, describes Bitcoin as "the most volatile asset class" he has observed. States purchasing Bitcoin near recent price peaks could experience substantial losses if values decline.
President Trump signed an executive order in March 2025 establishing a federal Strategic Bitcoin Reserve using approximately 200,000 BTC obtained through criminal and civil asset forfeitures. The BITCOIN Act, reintroduced by Senator Cynthia Lummis in March, seeks to codify this executive action. The federal bill proposes purchasing 1 million Bitcoin over five years using Federal Reserve remittances and gold certificate revaluations.
Some states have already passed similar legislation. New Hampshire and Arizona enacted Bitcoin reserve laws in May 2025, while Texas signed its measure in June. Other states including Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wyoming rejected or failed to advance comparable bills during 2025 legislative sessions. Florida withdrew its proposals entirely after the legislature adjourned in early May.
State Bitcoin advocates argue the reserves provide portfolio diversification and inflation protection. Zack Shapiro from the Bitcoin Policy Institute suggests states must reconsider wealth storage strategies amid potential federal spending reductions. Supporters point to Bitcoin's fixed supply cap of 21 million coins as protection against currency debasement, though opponents question whether taxpayer funds should support crypto market prices.
The Massachusetts hearing date has not been publicly announced. The outcome will depend partly on whether Democratic lawmakers view Bitcoin reserves as sound fiscal policy or speculative investment unsuitable for public funds.
