What would a strategic bitcoin reserve look like in Texas? Two lawmakers have ideas.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
What does the future of the cryptocurrency market look like under Trump 2.0?
The president-elect promised to make America the 'crypto capital of the planet.'
As the Trump administration explores a U.S. cryptocurrency stockpile, two Texas bills filed this session are looking to be at the forefront of establishing a strategic bitcoin reserve for the state.
The two bills, one filed by state Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, and the other by Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, seek to establish a strategic reserve for the cryptocurrency in the state, allowing corporations and individuals to donate or use bitcoin as a form of payment.
Last Thursday, President Donald Trump ordered the creation of a crypto task force to explore new regulations and what a U.S. cryptocurrency stockpile would look like. Instead of waiting on the federal government to establish a nationwide reserve, at least eight states, including Texas, have taken matters into their own hands.
Through the bills, the state wouldn't necessarily outright buy bitcoin using taxpayer funds. The bills would, however, create the reserve to be used in emergency situations, for government philanthropic spending and more at the discretion of the Legislature and comptroller.
'The beauty of a Texas strategic bitcoin reserve (through these bills) is it's primarily driven by donations, and there's really no risk to the Texas taxpayer. It's only a net positive,' said Lee Bratcher, founder and president of Texas Blockchain Council.
What would Texas' bitcoin reserve bills do?
While the two bills differ in practice, they both create a strategic reserve for the state to hold the cryptocurrency. They would also allow corporations and Texas residents to donate bitcoin to the state and possibly use it as a form of payment to state agencies.
Major takeaways from House Bill 1598, filed by Capriglione in December:
Establishes a strategic bitcoin reserve for Texas.
Allows the state to accept bitcoin in the form of donations from corporations or Texas residents.
Would be separate from the state's general fund and would be in the custody and discretion of the comptroller.
Minimum five-year holding period for the funds.
Bans hostile foreign entities from donating.
Allows the comptroller the option to tell some state agencies they can accept bitcoin as a form of payment.
'At the end of the day, there's no reason not to,' Capriglione told the American-Statesman. 'Bitcoin has shown that it is easy to use. It's become popular. It's become effective. It's a way to provide independence for individuals to be able to make payments, and it's successful. So why not? Why not allow individuals to have a state accept bitcoin as a form of payment?'
Major takeaways from Senate Bill 778, filed by Schwertner in January:
Establishes a strategic bitcoin reserve for Texas.
Allows the state to accept bitcoin in the form of donations from corporations or Texas residents.
Bans hostile foreign entities from donating.
Would be separate from the state's general fund and would be in the custody of the comptroller.
Allows the Legislature to direct the comptroller on how to use, access or report the funds.
No minimum holding period.
Allows the Legislature to direct the purchasing of bitcoin up to 1% of the general fund.
Creates an advisory oversight committee.
'It's a well thought-out way of dipping our toe into digital assets and the digital economy,' Schwertner said. 'From a state perspective, I think it sends a very important message that we support financial solvency and stewardship at the federal level, because we do it here in Texas regarding a balanced budget.'
Alan Orwick, co-founder of Quai Network and CEO of blockchain development company Dominant Strategies, told the American-Statesman he prefers Capriglione's bill, as he thinks outright purchasing bitcoin is risky.
He said a more gradual approach is needed. Schwertner's bill would allow the Legislature the option to purchase bitcoin but does not outright direct the purchase of the cryptocurrency.
'It could lead to that sort of rush on bitcoin and provide more scrutiny if we're outright buying bitcoin. … I'm not to say that the Senate approach is completely off the table in terms of the buying, but I do think more of a gradual change from the donations and fees compared to the outright buying,' Orwick said.
The major differences that Bratcher noticed between the two bills is the minimum holding periods and whether the state would outright purchase bitcoin.
Bratcher said the council doesn't have a preference on the two bills but thinks the state needs to be at the forefront of establishing a bitcoin reserve to hedge inflation and support the state's economy.
He told the American-Statesman he likes to think of the cryptocurrency industry like the invention of the microchip by Texas Instruments in 1958.
'The microchip was invented in Texas by engineers at Texas Instruments, but it was monetized in California,' Bratcher said. 'We want the economic benefit, the tax revenue, the job creation, the investment that will come with this, the digital asset and the wave of digital innovation that's coming through a digital asset reserve, to accrue and to benefit Texans. Not that we don't want that for the rest of the United States, but we want to primarily be working for the benefit of Texans.'
Is it risky? How does this differ from a federal stockpile?
The discussion of a federal crypto stockpile has been growing in recent years.
Though once skeptical of cryptocurrencies, Trump outlined his intent to create a reserve on the campaign trail and fulfilled a piece of that promise by setting up the task force last week.
His administration argues that holding bitcoin could hedge against inflation and a weakening dollar. He said in July, 'For too long, our government has violated the cardinal rule that every bitcoiner knows by heart: Never sell your bitcoin.'
More: President Trump: Executive order part of plan to make U.S. 'crypto capital of the planet'
According to crypto tracking firm Arkham Intelligence, the U.S. owns nearly $20 billion worth of bitcoin obtained through legal seizures.
U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming, has argued heavily in favor of establishing a federal reserve, which would probably involve the federal government purchasing bitcoin, though an ideal amount is undetermined. She introduced a bill that would have acquired, over time, 1 million bitcoins to hold for at least 20 years.
Some financial analysts have spoken against a federal cryptocurrency reserve, saying buying and stockpiling bitcoin and other crypto could be too risky or at the detriment of residents and taxpayers.
Orwick said he thinks the state-by-state approach to building reserves is more beneficial because a national policy could cause a run on bitcoin and would make it more volatile.
Bratcher, however, said he believes a national reserve would be beneficial and is necessary going into the future. Many financial services institutions, such as BlackRock and Fidelity, have started getting involved in cryptocurrency trading, which he said de-risks it for states and the federal government.
He thinks states such as Texas filing bills like those from Capriglione and Schwertner would send a message to the federal government.
'Now that the industry is more well-known, more respected, there's policy and regulatory guardrails against things that happened in the past in the digital asset industry that consumers were injured by; those guardrails have come up in a stronger way,' Bratcher said. 'I think it's very much de-risked for state governments and for the federal government to get involved and take advantage of this innovation.'
Capriglione said that since the state now has guardrails and safeguards surrounding cryptocurrency trading — thanks in part to a bill he authored that was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in 2023 — the risks have decreased.
He said the time to establish a reserve for Texas is now.
'It all has to go together. It has to be liquid, has to be safe, and it has to be valuable,' Capriglione said. 'It has to have some sort of regulation to make sure that the public feels confident in holding those assets, and it has to have sophisticated partners and individuals who see the value of it and have been allowing it to be used in really significant transactions.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors in Genetic Signatures (ASX:GSS) have unfortunately lost 85% over the last five years
Long term investing is the way to go, but that doesn't mean you should hold every stock forever. We don't wish catastrophic capital loss on anyone. Spare a thought for those who held Genetic Signatures Limited (ASX:GSS) for five whole years - as the share price tanked 85%. And we doubt long term believers are the only worried holders, since the stock price has declined 49% over the last twelve months. On the other hand the share price has bounced 8.2% over the last week. We really hope anyone holding through that price crash has a diversified portfolio. Even when you lose money, you don't have to lose the lesson. So let's have a look and see if the longer term performance of the company has been in line with the underlying business' progress. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Genetic Signatures wasn't profitable in the last twelve months, it is unlikely we'll see a strong correlation between its share price and its earnings per share (EPS). Arguably revenue is our next best option. Shareholders of unprofitable companies usually desire strong revenue growth. That's because fast revenue growth can be easily extrapolated to forecast profits, often of considerable size. Over half a decade Genetic Signatures reduced its trailing twelve month revenue by 2.3% for each year. While far from catastrophic that is not good. The share price fall of 13% (per year, over five years) is a stern reminder that money-losing companies are expected to grow revenue. It takes a certain kind of mental fortitude (or recklessness) to buy shares in a company that loses money and doesn't grow revenue. Fear of becoming a 'bagholder' may be keeping people away from this stock. You can see how earnings and revenue have changed over time in the image below (click on the chart to see the exact values). If you are thinking of buying or selling Genetic Signatures stock, you should check out this FREE detailed report on its balance sheet. A Different Perspective While the broader market gained around 13% in the last year, Genetic Signatures shareholders lost 49%. Even the share prices of good stocks drop sometimes, but we want to see improvements in the fundamental metrics of a business, before getting too interested. Unfortunately, last year's performance may indicate unresolved challenges, given that it was worse than the annualised loss of 13% over the last half decade. Generally speaking long term share price weakness can be a bad sign, though contrarian investors might want to research the stock in hope of a turnaround. I find it very interesting to look at share price over the long term as a proxy for business performance. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. To that end, you should be aware of the 3 warning signs we've spotted with Genetic Signatures . But note: Genetic Signatures may not be the best stock to buy. So take a peek at this free list of interesting companies with past earnings growth (and further growth forecast). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Australian exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump, Xi may meet ahead of or during APEC summit October: report
President Trump might visit China before going to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit between Oct. 30 and Nov. 1, or he could meet Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the APEC event in South Korea, the South China Morning Post reported on Sunday, citing multiple sources. The two countries have been trying to negotiate an end to an escalating tit-for-tat tariff war that has upended global trade and supply chains. The two sides have discussed a potential meeting between the leaders in the region this year, but they have not confirmed a date or location yet, according to a person familiar with the matter. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2019. REUTERS Trump has sought to impose tariffs on US importers for virtually all foreign goods, which he says will stimulate domestic manufacturing and which critics say will make many consumer goods more expensive for Americans. He has called for a universal base tariff rate of 10% on goods imported from all countries, with higher rates for imports from the most 'problematic' ones, including China: imports from there now have the highest tariff rate of 55%. Trump has set a deadline of Aug. 12 for the US and China to reach a durable tariffs agreement. President Donald Trump has set a deadline of Aug. 12 for the US and China to reach a durable tariffs deal. Costfoto/NurPhoto/Shutterstock A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to a request for comment about the reported plans for a meeting with Xi in the autumn. The two countries' most recent high-level meeting was on July 11, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had what both described as a productive and positive meeting in Malaysia about how trade negotiations should proceed. Rubio said then that Trump had been invited to China to meet with Xi, and said that both leaders 'want it to happen.' On Friday, China Commerce Minister Wang Wentao said China wants to bring its trade ties with the US back to a stable footing and that recent talks in Europe showed there was no need for a tariff war.
New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘Iraq Syndrome' is dead, why PBS & NPR had to go and other commentary
Foreign desk: 'Iraq Syndrome' Is Dead 'Fear of the expression of American military power has now dissolved,' cheers Commentary's Seth Mandel. In his first term, President Trump 'adopted a modified Murphy's Law that also governed his predecessor's foreign policy: Anything that can be Iraq, will be Iraq.' But that looks to have changed 'when President Trump ordered the successful strikes on Iran's nuclear program.' Notably, 'Ukraine is now benefiting from the Iran strikes because reality has dispelled the fog of Iraq Syndrome and the president is seeing more clearly.' Fact is, 'the 'just like Iraq' line of thinking isn't accurate, and now Trump realizes that.' How 'fitting that Donald Trump, who rode the effects of Iraq Syndrome all the way to the presidency (twice), would be the one to cure American politics of this malady.' Health beat: Med-Schools' Merit Malpractice 'The Supreme Court banned racial preferences in university admissions, but finding ways to maintain them has become a cottage industry in higher education,' blasts The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Medical schools are one of the worst abusers. A new study finds 'admitted black applicants had lower MCAT scores than admitted white and Asian applicants at 22 out of 23 schools.' At places like the University of Wisconsin, 'a black medical school applicant was about 10 times more likely to be admitted than white or Asian applicants with identical test scores and GPA.' 'In the admissions cycles since 2023, little has changed.' 'Preferences that elevate less qualified doctors won't reduce inequities in public health, but they will stigmatize successful minority applicants who excel.' 'Oh, and to remind, racial preferences are against the law.' Media watch: Why PBS & NPR Had To Go 'Let us call a spade a spade: NPR and PBS have earned the 'woke' label,' roars TIPP Insights' editorial board. That's why it's so great Congress just cut off federal funds. 'NPR is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It enjoys the tax-exempt privileges of a 501(c)(3) organization, yet operates as a de facto mouthpiece for the Democratic Party and progressive ideology.' Two GOP senators, Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), voted against the cuts, crying about the 'impact on rural and tribal communities.' 'It's a flimsy argument': Both 'stream through the internet and airwaves,' so 'even the most rural communities can access their content instantly.' As we've asked before,'In a world of endless streaming and podcasting, why are taxpayers still funding a media cocoon for coastal elites?' Spy world: Russia-Hoax Document Bonanza The 'floodgates' of 'long-classified information' about the Russia-hoax scandal may finally be opening, reports Paul Sperry at RealClearInvestigations. Documents include a secret audit revealing that an 'intelligence community assessment on Russia ordered by President Obama after the 2016 election' was framed to portray Trump as beholden to Putin. A US intelligence official 'alleged the outgoing administration weaponized' Russian intelligence 'to sabotage President-elect Trump.' The information could 'strengthen a criminal case' against Obama intelligence officials like former CIA chief John Brennan. Former FBI officials say prosecutors have 'sufficient grounds to charge Obama's FBI and CIA officials with criminal conspiracy.' Statistician: Medicaid Fearmongers' Bad Math Yale law professor Natasha Sarin's claim that 'at least 100,000 more' Americans will die over 'the next decade' due to Medicaid cuts 'reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'statistical lives saved,'' warns Aaron Brown at Reason. Sarin 'and several other prominent journalists misinterpreted a recent working paper' by economists Angela Wyse and Bruce D. Meyer, which estimated 'that the Medicaid expansion reduced mortality among eligible adults between 0.40% and 4.52% ,' or about 27,400 lives. But these are 'statistical lives,' and 'these same government programs also take many statistical lives.' 'Counting statistical lives' is 'a debased currency, because it counts each actual life multiple times. And citing only the good side of the ledger makes it impossible to evaluate.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Page
