Montana’s push to establish a Bitcoin reserve has hit a dead end. House Bill No. 429, which proposed investing state funds in Bitcoin, stablecoins, and precious metals, failed to pass a second reading in the state’s House of Representatives.
With a vote of 41-59, the bill was effectively shut down, marking a significant setback for Bitcoin advocates in the state. While some lawmakers saw the proposal as a forward-thinking move to diversify state reserves, fiscal conservatives strongly opposed it, citing concerns over risk and unclear financial allocation.
House Bill No. 429 aimed to create a special revenue account for investing in assets like Bitcoin, stablecoins, and precious metals. It proposed a strategic allocation of $50 million by mid-July 2025—potentially making Montana one of the few U.S. states to formally hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset.
The bill outlined investment criteria, including a requirement that digital assets must have a market capitalization exceeding $750 billion over the past year. This condition would have limited the options primarily to Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency by market value.
Had the legislation passed, Montana would have joined the growing list of states exploring Bitcoin reserves, following in the footsteps of Utah, Arizona, and Oklahoma. However, opposition within the House proved too strong for the proposal to move forward.
The bill’s failure was largely due to opposition from Republican lawmakers, many of whom expressed skepticism about investing taxpayer money into Bitcoin.
Representative Jane Gillette voiced concerns about the bill’s lack of clarity, stating, “I am not comfortable with this bill and I am definitely not voting for it as a fiscal conservative. I don’t think the bill clearly articulates enough what that money is going to be spent on.”
Representative Steven Kelly echoed similar concerns, calling Bitcoin “way too risky” as an investment for public funds. He emphasized that the House’s responsibility is to protect taxpayer money, not speculate on volatile assets.
Bill Mercer, another Republican lawmaker, was also firmly against the proposal. “Taking the hard-earned money from workers across the state and speculating on it is not the right way to go. So, I am gonna be a ‘no’ on this,” he stated.
The bill initially had the backing of Montana’s House Business and Labor Committee, but this support wasn’t enough to carry it through the full House vote. Despite efforts from Bitcoin-friendly lawmakers, the concerns over risk and accountability ultimately led to its rejection.
While this legislative effort failed, it’s unlikely that Montana’s exploration of Bitcoin as a reserve asset will end here. Other states are actively considering similar initiatives, and the conversation around digital assets as a strategic financial tool continues to gain traction.
Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Action Fund, remains optimistic about the growing interest in Bitcoin reserves across the U.S. He noted on X (formerly Twitter) that his team had been working closely with lawmakers to push forward a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” policy.
Even though this particular bill was struck down, Montana’s involvement in the broader Bitcoin conversation signals a shift in how states are approaching digital assets. If market conditions stabilize and Bitcoin gains further institutional acceptance, the state could revisit the idea in the future.
For now, however, the message from Montana’s lawmakers is clear: they’re not ready to bet taxpayer money on Bitcoin just yet.
