Background: State-Level Initiatives, Two States Have Incorporated Bitcoin into Reserves
For cryptocurrency users, the most anticipated policy that could be implemented after Trump's election is undoubtedly the adoption of Bitcoin as a strategic reserve by the United States. However, more than three months after the election, the central government has yet to take action. Is the hope for Bitcoin as a strategic reserve shattered? Not at all. In fact, within just a week, two states in the U.S. have officially written Bitcoin into their state reserves, with five more states in the legislative stage, ready to act. The differences in funding sources, allocation limits, and custody models adopted by each state reflect varying tolerances of local governments towards "highly volatile, decentralized assets." This article critically analyzes who is genuinely laying the groundwork, who is engaging in political theatrics, and where potential black swan events might be lurking. It also extrapolates the impact of this "official HODL" wave on market liquidity and narrative premiums.
How Are New Hampshire and Arizona Approaching This?
In just 48 hours, New Hampshire and Arizona completed their legislation and received the governor's signature, marking the beginning of a new era for state reserves. The paths and risk control mechanisms adopted by the two states are almost diametrically opposed, revealing the trade-offs under different political and economic objectives.
New Hampshire HB 302 | Proactive Allocation, Solely BTC, Set Ceiling
New Hampshire's approach resembles "Treasury-level asset diversification." The legislation authorizes the state treasurer to convert up to 5% of the general fund and rainy day fund directly into digital assets with a market capitalization exceeding $500 billion for a continuous year, which effectively means only Bitcoin qualifies.
Legislators emphasize that this 5% cap serves as a safety valve: if the financial pool expands or contracts, the holding limit will adjust accordingly to avoid a one-time heavy investment. However, the legislation is vague on whether "forced proportional selling" would occur if the fund size shrinks, leaving an accounting gray area.
In terms of custody, HB 302 provides three options:
- State treasury self-managed multi-signature cold wallet;
- Custody by a licensed "Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI)" or other regulated banks;
- Holding through a Bitcoin ETF approved by the SEC or NFA.
If opting for a cold wallet, self-management must meet seven technical standards, including geographic diversification, hardware isolation, and annual penetration testing, to minimize the risk of private key leakage. However, if choosing an ETF, the state treasury only receives a trust certificate—transparency reverts to traditional financial ledgers, contradicting the on-chain advantage of "visibility and traceability."
In terms of information disclosure, the state treasurer must list holdings, costs, and unrealized gains or losses in quarterly financial reports; supporting legislators have verbally committed to "publishing on-chain addresses" to enhance transparency, but this is not written into mandatory clauses. The legislation also completely prohibits leverage, borrowing, or collateralization, aiming to eliminate credit risk at the cost of forfeiting all yield-enhancing means.
New Hampshire is taking the "Treasury-level asset diversification" route—small proportion, single asset, extremely conservative—but it also directly ties taxpayers to the Bitcoin price rollercoaster.
Arizona HB 2749 | Passive Acquisition, Zero Tax Burden, Allows Staking
Arizona, on the other hand, views "not using a dime of tax money" as its core selling point. The new law allows the state government, after a three-year search period, to transfer unclaimed crypto assets (including those with incomplete private keys but identifiable) into a newly established "Bitcoin and Digital Asset Reserve Fund."
From this point on, the fund can legally accept all derived airdrops and staking rewards, creating a compounding cycle without needing to request additional budgets from the legislature.
Even bolder is the scope of assets; the legislation imposes no market capitalization or liquidity thresholds—any asset that falls into the state's hands can be included. Theoretically, everything from Bitcoin to meme coins with daily trading volumes of only a few tens of thousands of dollars could be acquired; the state diversifies risk through a varied portfolio but also exposes itself to high-risk price manipulation in smaller coins.
Custody must be entrusted to compliant institutions licensed in Arizona; during this period, assets are allowed to participate in full-chain staking to earn returns. This makes the state treasury an active player on-chain for the first time, and if validators are penalized (slashing) or smart contracts fail, the losses will also fall on the public sector's accounts.
In terms of liquidity management, HB 2749 only allows the state treasurer to convert up to 10% of non-Bitcoin holdings into cash to subsidize general fund expenditures; the BTC portion is legislatively locked, and cannot be touched unless further legislation is passed. Information disclosure adopts a "annual report + legislative allocation for use" dual oversight, but there is no mandatory public disclosure of on-chain addresses, resulting in lower transparency than decentralized standards.
Arizona treats BTC as "found money earning interest," leveraging staking and airdrops to amplify idle value, cleverly avoiding taxpayer scrutiny, but also placing the state treasury at the forefront of on-chain operational risks.
What should we, as investors, pay attention to?
- Buying Scale: Even if New Hampshire fully allocates, it would only amount to $300-400 million, having limited impact on BTC liquidity; Arizona's initial scale is even smaller.
- Narrative Boost: Official endorsement + "zero tax burden" story is enough to elevate short-term sentiment, but cash flow will not immediately flood in.
- Risk Control Comparison: New Hampshire uses "cap + cold wallet" for low returns; Arizona uses "no-cost staking" for high technical/contract risks, neither model is a panacea.
- Black Swan: If BTC experiences a single-day drop of >20%, New Hampshire may be forced to write down its 5% holdings due to accounting evaluations; Arizona would face additional risks from staking slashing or custody mishaps, both of which could allow opposition in the state legislature to overturn decisions.
Core Differences
| Dimension | New Hampshire | Arizona | |--------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Motivation Position | Public fund diversification | Activation of unclaimed assets | | Fund Heat | Proactive allocation, immediate buy| Passive acquisition, no new buying| | Holding Structure | 100% BTC (market cap threshold) | BTC + any assets entering the fund| | Yield Strategy | Pure price difference, no leverage| Staking/airdrop, compounding yield| | Liquidity Exit | Can fully liquidate | BTC permanently locked, non-BTC max 10% can be allocated| | Political Bet | Directly betting taxpayer wallets | "Zero-cost" political statement |
What About Other States?
| State | Progress | Latest Update | Key Provisions | Potential Buying Scale / Mechanism Highlights | Major Obstacles or Risks |
|---------------|----------|---------------|----------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
| Texas | High | Passed Senate in February, now in House Finance Committee; awaiting full House vote by June 2 | • Establish Texas Strategic Bitcoin Reserve
• Funding sources: state allocations + private donations; initially proposed $21 million
• Asset limit: market cap ≥ $500B (only BTC)
• Managed by the Comptroller, requires biennial performance reports | If funding is approved, it will become the first major state to actively buy coins with public funds; scale still 1% of BTC daily trading |
| Oklahoma | Medium | Passed House in March 77:15, but Senate Tax Committee rejected it on April 14, failed this session | • Allows state treasury + retirement funds to allocate BTC | If revived, it could inject pension-level funds | Pension exposure faced strong opposition from unions and Democrats, must remove clauses for reintroduction |
| Illinois | Low | HB 1844 only completed one reading, still stuck in Rules Committee | • Only accepts donated BTC, state treasury cannot actively buy
• Must hold for 5 years before use | Completely depends on donation willingness; short-term buying is nearly zero | No new public fund exposure, low political resistance but also difficult to have substantial impact |
| Missouri | Stagnant | Completed public hearing on March 24, no further scheduling | • Can accept donations and allow state treasury to self-manage cold wallets | Theoretically could actively buy, but needs subsequent funding; progress stagnated | Legislative agenda crowded, low priority |
| Florida | Withdrawn | HB 487 / SB 550 "withdrawn" on May 6 | • Originally intended to allow public funds to invest in BTC, no market cap threshold | Withdrawal = short-term buying drops to zero | Senate finance leader stated "volatility too high, not in line with conservative finance"; friendly states temporarily avoiding the spotlight |
- Key Focus on Texas: If it successfully schedules and allocates funding by June 2, it will mark the first case of "large-scale public fund buying" and amplify the narrative. Conversely, if even Texas faces hurdles, it will be even harder for subsequent states to mobilize.
- Buying ≠ Legislation: Even if the bill passes, budget allocations still require separate approval; investors should continuously track funding bills and the public disclosure of on-chain wallet addresses.
- Significant Clause Differences: From Texas's "proactive allocation + solely BTC" to Illinois's "pure donations + five-year lockup," the risk/reward curves vary significantly, and subsequent states may choose to mix and match the best elements.
Conclusion: Will Buying Scale Bring Substantial Effects? Emotion Comes First
New Hampshire allows the state treasury to convert up to 5% of the general/rainy day fund into Bitcoin, with the state fiscal year budget being less than $7 billion; even if fully allocated, it would only amount to $300-400 million. Arizona, even more so, is "passively acquiring" unclaimed crypto assets for over three years, making it difficult to even reach the hundred million mark in the short term. In contrast, Bitcoin's 24-hour spot trading volume has long maintained at $60-70 billion, meaning that even a one-time entry from state buying would only account for 0.1% of daily market liquidity; the legislative noise is greater than the actual funding volume; price reactions are more about emotional trading rather than an imbalance in spot supply and demand.
The bills from both states were signed on May 6 (NH) and May 8 (AZ); Bitcoin rose from $96K to nearly $100K within 48 hours, with a weekly increase of about 3%. Axios statistics show that during the same period, social media discussions related to the keyword "Bitcoin Reserve" surged over 240%. However, trading volume did not expand correspondingly, indicating a "headline rally" rather than significant spot absorption.
Additionally, Glassnode pointed out that the 30-day actual annualized volatility has fallen back to 45-50%, reaching a low range since 2021, but the long-term historical range often exceeds 60%, still incomparable to traditional assets. If a Black Swan event occurs with a single-day drop of >20%, New Hampshire's 5% holdings will immediately face impairment pressure, while Arizona will also bear the additional risks of staking slashing or custody contract errors.
The official HODL narrative has been "half-cooked" by the market; the real determinants of market conditions are the speed of legislative implementation and the actual amount of fiscal allocations. Only when legislation, funding, and on-chain addresses are all established simultaneously can it be said that the primary reason for the rise in Bitcoin prices can be attributed to state strategic reserves.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
