EXCLUSIVE: A Deep Dive into New Hampshire's Bitcoin Reserve Law
A Conversation with Ian Huyett, member of the New Hampshire Blockchain Council
While the focus has been on a national Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (established a couple weeks ago by executive order), individual states have been working for months to establish their own Bitcoin reserves. Currently, more than 20 states have proposed legislation or are in progress of establishing a Bitcoin reserve. In a race to be the first to buy, on March 5, New Hampshire’s House Commerce Committee has approved a bill that would allow the Treasurer to acquire Bitcoin. I talked with Ian Huyett, member of the New Hampshire Blockchain Council, to better understand why and how states are approaching this.
Matt Bagazinski: A lot of discussion around these bills calls them "Strategic Bitcoin Reserves." What does that mean? How is it different from simply saying "we want to invest in Bitcoin"?
Ian Huyett: There are two or three types of constructs that are called “Strategic Bitcoin Reserves.” The original idea—associated with Senator Cynthia Lummis—is to buy a large amount of Bitcoin and statutorily lock it up for a set period of time. Lummis’ federal bill would order the US Treasury to buy 1 million Bitcoin and hold it for 20 years. Her idea is to pay down 36% of 2050 US debt if Bitcoin compounds at 25%.
Lummis’ bill would be difficult to reverse. You would probably need to pass hostile legislation through both chambers of Congress and have an anti-crypto executive branch as well.
Then there is what David Sacks and Trump did in his executive order Thursday, directing the US Treasury to put forfeited Bitcoin into a special account. This is a strategic reserve in the sense that Trump doesn’t plan to sell the Bitcoin. Legally, though, Trump or the next president could have the Treasury sell the reserves at any time. So this should be seen as a first step towards a full-on Lummis reserve where you purchase assets and lock some of them up.
In New Hampshire, Rep. Keith Ammon’s bill—like a similar bill that’s close to passing in Utah—is more like Trump’s new reserve: hostile executive branches could sell off the assets unless we pass follow-on bills locking some of them up. But one difference is that New Hampshire is actually going to purchase Bitcoin instead of just holding on to forfeited assets.
MB: The bill mentions that precious metals and digital assets may be held in the Treasury. How much of this reserve do you expect to be Bitcoin?
IH: All the discussion that has taken place between legislators and the New Hampshire Treasurer has really revolved around Bitcoin, not precious metals. There’s a good chance that New Hampshire’s initial Bitcoin exposure will actually be through a Bitcoin ETP—probably Fidelity’s because of their presence in New Hampshire. But if the Governor feels like she’s getting good national press as a result of the Bitcoin Reserve law, that would definitely accelerate the timetable for the state buying Bitcoin directly.
MB: You seem certain that NH will beat other states, even the US, to investing in Bitcoin. What is the significance of being the first mover?
IH: We are going to crush Florida and should easily beat Congress. Unfortunately, it looks like Utah might be about to beat us. We did win a landslide victory in our House Commerce Committee, but we still need to pass the bill through two chambers, and that takes time.
Obviously, if Bitcoin continues to be a top-performing asset over the next decade, the sooner we buy it the better. Since the biggest price jump in the immediate future could be the ripple effect of a Lummis reserve, we want to preempt that and to beat as many other states as we can.
MB: Is it simply as a financial investment? How "on chain" will the holdings be?
IH: I don’t think any of these strategic reserves are purely financial investments. As David Sacks pointed out, Trump just signed his Bitcoin Reserve executive order with the express purpose of making the US the crypto capital of the world. New Hampshire should, at a bare minimum, be the crypto capital of New England.
As far as how public New Hampshire’s reserve is going to be, that remains to be seen. The bills leave a lot of flexibility in the hands of the treasurer.
MB: What does a Bitcoin reserve do for New Hampshire as a state?
IH: A New Hampshire Bitcoin reserve would signal that we’re a state that welcomes and fosters innovation. Obviously, that kind of thing has a low base effect in New Hampshire, because people perceive the state as a giant retirement community with no opportunities.
But more importantly, New Hampshire sits in the middle of a dense patchwork of small states where we are, fundamentally, the only contrarian jurisdiction. Both of those factors give the state massive potential for policy innovation.
In New England, people and businesses can vote with their feet by driving 40 minutes away. Theoretically, that should kindle a fire of competition and innovation among the states. But since the rest of New England is a political monoculture, we’re really the only state where certain innovations are even conceivable. New Hampshire could become a Singapore with mountains if we really wanted to.
MB: How does this play out nationally? In 10 years, will there be a divide between Bitcoin and Bitcoin-less states? How easy is it for a future, unapproving government to dump it all?
IH: That depends on whether you’re bullish or ultra-bullish. If someone like Michael Saylor is right, Texas could invest a fairly small amount of its total budget in Bitcoin and—in 10 years—have a reserve that is multiples of New Hampshire’s total annual budget. That’s a good investment, but it isn’t going to be enough to re-stratify the pro-Bitcoin and non-Bitcoin states. On the other hand, if Peter Thiel was right in his much larger predictions a few years ago, and New Hampshire is the only New England state with substantial reserves, then in 10 years we could buy Massachusetts and wear Maine as a hat. If you think there is even a small chance that anything like this is right, then a state Bitcoin reserve is a good political calculation.
As far as whether a hostile government can dump the assets, that depends on the kind of law we have. With the current bill, a hostile treasurer could dump it. That’s one reason states might want to pass follow-on bills later and lock up some of their reserves for the future.
MB: On March 5, the bill passed the House Commerce Committee almost unanimously. What are the remaining steps before NH is able to start buying Bitcoin?
IH: The legal answer is different from the political reality. Legally, the bill has to pass the full House, pass a Senate committee, pass the full Senate, and then be approved by the Governor. Then the Treasurer has to voluntarily buy Bitcoin.
Politically, if this bill just passes the New Hampshire House, I don’t see a likely scenario where New Hampshire doesn’t own some Bitcoin in 2025. The Governor has set up a “Commission for Government Efficiency” named in honor of DOGE. By the time this bill passes the House, I think the Governor is going to be interested in getting this bill to her desk.
MB: What are the biggest hurdles to this bill becoming law? What are the arguments against it?
IH: The main organized opposition to pro-crypto legislation in New Hampshire right now is the Sierra Club and the New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions. Their basic argument is that Bitcoin is bad because it uses too much energy.
That’s sad to me as someone who has been a militant environmentalist since I was a kid, but then I look at the New Hampshire Sierra Club, and their logo is the trans flag. So I have to remember that this isn’t John Muir’s Sierra Club. My suspicion is this has more to do with the cultural associations around cryptocurrency than the actual energy use.
New Hampshire is the pediatric cancer capital of America, potentially related to PFAS in the water and air. Even if I was a progressive environmentalist, trying to ban cryptocurrency in New Hampshire would not be high on my priority list.
MB: What other initiatives is the New Hampshire Blockchain Council working towards? Where can readers follow you and your work?
IH: We also support House Bill 639, a Blockchain Basics Act. The idea behind that bill is to grab the low-hanging fruit in terms of establishing some crypto-friendly prospective rules, like a right to mine, and also to implement recommendations from Governor Sununu’s Commission on Cryptocurrencies. In particular, the bill would help our state legal system specialize in blockchain-related disputes.
You can follow the New Hampshire Blockchain Council on X at @NHBlockchain or on our website, and you can follow me at @IanHuyett.