Close Menu
    Tuesday, January 27
    NFT

    South Dakota Lawmaker Makes Another Run at Bitcoin Reserve Bill

    KryptonewsBy No Comments2 Mins Read

    The state representative introduced similar legislation shortly after taking office in 2025, but the bill was deferred and not signed into law.

    A member of South Dakota’s House of Representative has introduced another bill that would allow the US state to invest in Bitcoin about a year after similar legislation was deferred.

    Representative Logan Manhart introduced the Bitcoin (BTC) reserve bill, HB 1155, on Tuesday in South Dakota’s legislature. The legislation had only minor changes from a bill the lawmaker sponsored in 2025, by amending the state’s code to allow the State Investment Council to invest up to 10% of public funds in Bitcoin.

    “Strong money. Strong state,” said Manhart in a Tuesday X post announcing the bill.

    Logan Manhart’s 2025 bill, left, and 2026 bill, right, for a BTC reserve. Source: South Dakota legislature

    If passed by the legislature and signed into law, South Dakota would join a handful of US states that have adopted bills for crypto or BTC reserves. As of January, only Texas, Arizona and New Hampshire have passed laws allowing the states to invest in Bitcoin or hold crypto seized by authorities, but lawmakers in other regions have proposed similar bills.

    Related: New Hampshire approves first-of-its-kind $100M Bitcoin-backed municipal bond

    Manhart, a Republican, took office in January 2025 after being elected to the South Dakota House of Representatives for the 1st District.

    US federal Bitcoin reserve still a challenge, says White House Crypto Council director

    Although US President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a Digital Asset Stockpile in March 2025, executive orders are not immediately implemented with the same force of legislation passed by Congress. Patrick Witt, the director of the White House Crypto Council, said in a January interview that there were some “obscure legal provisions” holding up the order.