tl;dr
South Dakota lawmakers rejected a bill allowing state investment in Bitcoin, following a similar outcome in Montana. The proposed bill aimed to allocate up to 10% of public funds into Bitcoin investments as a way to diversify the state's financial portfolio. State Representative Logan Manhart advoca...
South Dakota lawmakers rejected a bill allowing state investment in Bitcoin, following a similar outcome in Montana. The proposed bill aimed to allocate up to 10% of public funds into Bitcoin investments as a way to diversify the state's financial portfolio. State Representative Logan Manhart advocated for the bill, citing Bitcoin's ability to preserve value in inflationary environments. However, South Dakota's State Investment Officer, Matt Clark, expressed concerns about Bitcoin's volatility and lack of intrinsic value. Despite the setback, Manhart remains committed to reviving the bill in the future. While other states have also stalled Bitcoin reserve proposals, several, including Florida, Arizona, Utah, and Texas, are pushing forward with their own bills. Meanwhile, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies experienced a decline amid trade concerns and a drop in technology stocks, with Bitcoin falling 3.9% to $91,980.
South Dakota lawmakers dealt another blow to Bitcoin advocates on Monday when they voted to axe a bill that would have allowed the state to invest in Bitcoin. In a key move, the House Commerce and Energy Committee voted 9-3 to defer HB1202 until the 41st day of the session, a procedural decision that effectively killed the bill, as the session concludes in no more than 40 days. South Dakota’s decision follows a similar outcome in Montana, where lawmakers shot down a Bitcoin reserve bill in a 41-59 vote last week. The proposal, introduced by State Representative Logan Manhart (R-S.D.), sought to permit the state to allocate up to 10% of its public funds into Bitcoin investments as a way to diversify its financial portfolio.
"It’s a commonsense update to South Dakota’s investment strategy by allowing a limited allocation of state funds into alternative assets that have consistently proven to preserve value, particularly in inflationary environments," Manhart said, as cited in the South Dakota Public Broadcasting report. Matt Clark, South Dakota’s State Investment Officer, raised concerns about Bitcoin’s volatility and lack of intrinsic value. "Bitcoin does not have any underlying physical use,” Clark said. “It does not generate income, much like commodities or other kinds of assets.” Clark said that while Bitcoin could potentially be integrated into state investments in the future, the current market uncertainty made it too early to amend the law, and passing the bill would only lead to more confusion.
Manhart disagreed, saying that Bitcoin, with its fixed supply and decentralized nature, is a valuable asset that the state should consider taking advantage of. Despite this setback, Manhart remains determined to push for the bill’s revival, pledging on X, "We will be back next year." While states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania have also stalled Bitcoin reserve proposals, the momentum for such initiatives is not dead. Several other states, including Florida, Arizona, Utah, and Texas, are pushing forward with their own bills, with around 18 state-level Bitcoin reserve proposals still pending, as shown in Bitcoin Reserve Tracker. Meanwhile, Bitcoin and other cryptos took a hit on Monday amid fresh trade concerns and a steep drop in technology stocks, contributing to a general risk-off atmosphere across global markets. The leading crypto has fallen 3.9% on the day, dropping to $91,980, CoinGecko data shows.