The U.S. states of New Hampshire and Arizona have made significant decisions involving the use of Bitcoin in their public finances. Although both have passed legislation related to the topic, the approaches adopted reveal distinct levels of confidence and ambition regarding the adoption of digital assets as a strategic reserve. New Hampshire opted for a direct investment policy in Bitcoin, while Arizona remained more cautious, limiting itself to the management of unclaimed crypto assets.
New Hampshire became the first state in the United States to officially allow part of its public funds to be invested in Bitcoin. Through House Bill 302, signed on May 6, 2025, the state authorized the state treasurer to allocate up to 5% of its financial reserves in digital assets with a market capitalization exceeding $500 billion — a criterion that, at the moment, only Bitcoin meets. These investments must be maintained in regulated products, such as ETFs, or under the custody of qualified institutions, ensuring legal security and transparency.
On the other hand, Arizona also created a Bitcoin fund, but with a more limited scope. On May 8, 2025, Governor Katie Hobbs signed House Bill 2749, which establishes the Bitcoin and Digital Assets Reserve Fund, composed exclusively of unclaimed digital assets. Included in this fund are staking rewards, airdrops, and other credits not redeemed by their owners after three years. Although the law allows the use of these assets to generate returns through staking, it does not authorize the use of public money to directly purchase cryptocurrencies.
It is worth noting that Arizona even approved two bolder proposals that would allow the investment of up to 10% of public funds in Bitcoin and create a strategic digital assets fund. However, both initiatives were vetoed by the governor, who cited concerns about the risks involved in assets considered volatile or untested in the context of public management. The decision reflects a more conservative stance compared to that of New Hampshire, even with the state showing interest in keeping up with the evolution of the sector.
These decisions demonstrate that the debate about the role of Bitcoin in public finance is just beginning. While New Hampshire positions itself as a pioneer in the strategic adoption of cryptocurrency, Arizona chooses a path of lower exposure, yet still relevant. The experiences of these two states may influence future policies in other parts of the United States, signaling a growing institutional legitimacy of Bitcoin as an alternative store of value.
