Montana’s House of Representatives has rejected House Bill No. 429, a proposal to make Bitcoin part of the state’s financial reserves. On February 22, lawmakers voted 41-59 against the bill, citing concerns about the risks of using public funds for cryptocurrency investments. Despite earlier approval from the House Business and Labor Committee, the bill failed to gain enough support on the House floor.

Why Did Montana Reject the Bitcoin Reserve Bill?

The bill faced strong opposition due to concerns over financial risk and regulatory uncertainty. Lawmakers hesitated to invest taxpayer money into volatile assets like Bitcoin.

Representative Steven Kelly voiced concerns about the proposal, stating:

“It’s still taxpayer money, and we’re responsible for it.”

Additionally, some lawmakers disapproved of the bill’s inclusion of NFTs, fearing it would open the door to even riskier investments. An amendment that proposed funding the bill through ARPA interest instead of the state’s General Fund also failed, as lawmakers questioned whether the funds could legally be used this way. The lack of apparent oversight ultimately pushed many to vote against the proposal.

Read Also: XRP ($1.99)’s $100 Dream: Can Ripple’s Legal Victory Ignite a Historic Rally?

What Was House Bill No. 429 Trying to Achieve?

House Bill No. 429 aimed to diversify Montana’s reserves by allowing investments in Bitcoin, stablecoins, and precious metals through a special revenue account. Supporters believed this would strengthen the state’s financial portfolio and offer potential returns to taxpayers.

Bitcoin was the bill’s primary focus, as it met the $750 billion market cap requirement. If passed, Montana would have joined states like Utah, Arizona, and Texas, which are actively exploring crypto reserve strategies.

Could Montana Revisit This Bill in the Future?

Although this bill version is dead, supporters hope a revised proposal could surface in future sessions. Montana might reconsider a Bitcoin reserve strategy if lawmakers can address concerns about funding sources and regulatory oversight.

Across the U.S., 24 states have explored Bitcoin reserve policies, with Utah leading the way. Montana could still join them if a better-structured plan emerges.

What Does This Mean for Crypto Regulation in the U.S.?

Montana’s rejection highlights the ongoing debate over state-level crypto adoption. While some lawmakers see digital assets as an opportunity for financial growth, others view them as a risky gamble. This decision adds to the uncertainty surrounding Bitcoin regulations in the U.S., keeping investors and policymakers on edge.

One thing is sure: the conversation about cryptocurrency in state reserves is far from over.

The post Montana Rejects Bitcoin Reserve Bill – What It Means for Crypto’s Future in the State appeared first on FXcrypto News.