January 28, 2026
Finance

South Dakota Revisits Bitcoin Investment Legislation Amid Volatility Concerns

House Bill 1155 proposes up to 10% of public funds in Bitcoin, echoing last year's stalled effort

Loading...
Loading quote...

Summary

South Dakota's legislature is reconsidering a bill that would permit the state to allocate a portion of its public funds to Bitcoin investments. House Bill 1155, introduced by Republican Representative Logan Manhart, aims to authorize up to 10% of eligible state funds for Bitcoin, revisiting the topic after a similar measure was postponed last year due to concerns about cryptocurrency volatility and asset utility. The proposal includes stringent security protocols and offers multiple investment avenues, currently advancing to a committee that previously voted it down.

Key Points

House Bill 1155 permits South Dakota to invest up to 10% of eligible state funds in Bitcoin through direct holdings, custodial services, or regulated ETFs.
Stringent security measures are mandated to safeguard the state’s digital assets, including private key control, encrypted hardware storage, multi-person transaction approval, and regular audits.
Last year's identical bill failed due to volatility concerns and the perception that Bitcoin lacks intrinsic use and income generation.
The 10% investment ceiling is aggressive compared to traditional public fund strategies but conservative against some corporate treasury policies, aiming to balance risk and benefit.

In a renewed legislative effort, South Dakota is once again examining the possibility of integrating Bitcoin into its portfolio of publicly managed investments. On Tuesday, Republican Representative Logan Manhart formally introduced House Bill 1155, a proposal to empower the State Investment Council to allocate as much as 10% of qualifying public funds in Bitcoin holdings. This initiative mirrors an earlier attempt from the previous year that was effectively halted amidst apprehensions over digital currency price instability.

The bill outlines three distinct methods by which the state may hold Bitcoin: directly possessing the cryptocurrency under exclusive governmental control; entrusting qualified custodians, such as regulated financial institutions; or investing via regulated Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Each pathway aims to provide flexibility while ensuring compliance with established financial standards.

Recognizing risks inherent in handling digital assets, the legislation mandates rigorous security requirements for any Bitcoin holdings. Specifically, the state must maintain control over its private cryptographic keys, ensure they are encrypted and stored across multiple secure hardware locations, require multiple personnel approvals before authorizing transactions, and conduct systematic security audits to maintain integrity.

Following its introduction, House Bill 1155 has been assigned to the Committee on Commerce and Energy, the same legislative body responsible for defeating a nearly identical proposal—House Bill 1202—last year. The earlier bill was introduced in January 2025 but failed to proceed before session adjournment, with the legislature postponing its consideration past the allowable timeframe as the session spanned only 40 days.

Opposition to the previous bill centered primarily on concerns regarding Bitcoin’s notorious price volatility. According to South Dakota’s State Investment Officer Matt Clark, Bitcoin’s lack of intrinsic physical application and failure to generate consistent income streams rendered it unsuitable as a state asset. At that time in February 2025, Bitcoin’s value hovered near $89,500, which is comparable to its recent trading price around $89,900, indicating relative stability in the interim period.

Allocating up to 10% of public funds into Bitcoin represents a bold approach relative to traditional portfolio diversification theories, which typically advise more conservative investments for state funds. This threshold, however, remains circumspect when contrasted with private corporate strategies; for example, the publicly traded firm Strategy Inc. (NASDAQ:MSTR) retains a majority proportion of its treasury in Bitcoin, owning over 712,000 BTC. Still, it is important to note that private companies, unlike public institutions, manage capital without direct taxpayer accountability.

The set cap of 10% offers a balance—providing a significant enough exposure to benefit from any appreciation in Bitcoin’s market value, while simultaneously limiting potential downside risks. In the event of a market rally, this allocation could considerably enhance state investment returns. Conversely, should Bitcoin’s price decline sharply, losses would be confined to the defined percentage of the invested state funds.

When announcing the bill, Representative Manhart expressed confidence in the proposal’s alignment with fiscal strength, noting via social media platform X, “I am proud to say I have released my bill that would allow the State of South Dakota to invest in Bitcoin. Strong money. Strong state.”

Over recent years, Bitcoin’s price fluctuations have diminished in severity relative to earlier crypto market cycles, alongside growing institutional adoption. However, some state-level financial officers—including Clark—remain hesitant, citing Bitcoin’s absence of cash flow generation as a fundamental drawback.

For advocates and holders of Bitcoin, state adoption carries symbolic importance, underscoring growing legitimacy and potentially fostering consistent buying demand. Such developments can influence broader market sentiment. Nevertheless, the practical market impact of South Dakota’s public funds entering the Bitcoin market is limited by the state's comparatively small investment pool versus Bitcoin’s overall $1.8 trillion market capitalization.

Risks
  • Bitcoin’s price volatility remains a core concern that previously stalled legislative approval and continues to challenge state investment officers.
  • Bitcoin does not generate cash flow or physical utility, raising questions about its suitability as a state-held asset.
  • South Dakota’s pool of public funds is relatively small, limiting the material impact of its investment on the broader Bitcoin market.
  • The bill’s progress depends on approval by a legislative committee that voted down a similar proposal the previous year, indicating potential political resistance.
Disclosure
Education only / not financial advice
Search Articles
Category
Finance

Financial News

Ticker Sentiment
BTC - neutral MSTR - neutral
Related Articles
Amazon's Investment Propels Beta Technologies Stock in After-Hours Trading

Beta Technologies Inc, an aerospace company specializing in electric aircraft and propulsion systems...

Cryptocurrency Market Holds Steady Amid Anticipation of US-Iran Developments

The cryptocurrency market demonstrates a cautious stance as Bitcoin approaches the $69,000 mark. Oth...

SoFi Shares Slip Slightly Despite Strong Q4 Earnings and Bullish Outlook

SoFi Technologies Inc’s stock saw a minor decline Tuesday afternoon following a period of heighten...

UBS Adjusts Tech Sector Outlook, Advocates Diversification Into Healthcare and Financials

UBS has revised its stance on the U.S. information technology sector from attractive to neutral, hig...

ArcelorMittal Advances Green Steel Production with Major Dunkirk Investment

ArcelorMittal's recent announcement of a €1.3 billion investment in an electric arc furnace (EAF) ...

Analyst Upgrades Spotlight: Unity Software Momentum and Top Picks Including Ichor Holdings and Thomson Reuters

Recent analyst activity has highlighted significant upward revisions for several key stocks, with Un...