New Hampshire Blockchain Basic Laws (HB 639)

The adopted text would create a new RSA chapter 359-V titled Blockchain Basic Laws. The bill states that New Hampshire should establish a state legal regime for blockchain-related business and innovation while protecting investors and consumers. It defines blockchain, blockchain protocol, decentralized systems, digital assets, digital asset exchanges, digital asset mining, digital asset mining businesses, nodes, self-hosted wallets, smart contracts and staking.

The bill defines digital assets broadly to include fungible and non-fungible digital representations of value or rights that can be possessed and transferred person to person without necessary reliance on an intermediary and that are recorded on a blockchain system. It expressly includes virtual currencies, cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, NFTs and other digital-only assets that confer economic, proprietary, access rights or powers.

HB 639-FN would restrict state and local government agencies and subdivisions from prohibiting, restricting or otherwise impairing an individual’s ability to use digital assets to buy legal goods or services, self-custody digital assets through a self-hosted wallet or third-party wallet, or use digital assets as a payment method without a tax, withholding, assessment or charge based solely on that payment method.

• Node operation: state and local agencies could not prohibit any person or business from operating a node to connect to a blockchain protocol or transfer digital assets on a blockchain protocol.
• Mining and money transmission: home digital asset mining and digital asset mining businesses would not require a New Hampshire money transmitter license under RSA 399-G solely for the covered activity.
• Staking treatment: own-funds mining or staking would not be deemed an offering or sale of a security under RSA 421-B, and staking-as-a-service would receive a limited securities-law carveout if the assets remain under exchange or owner control.

The bill would let a directly affected person petition the superior court or the blockchain dispute docket for relief from violations of the new chapter. Courts could order declaratory, injunctive or other equitable relief, and a prevailing claimant could receive reasonable attorney’s fees after showing a purposeful violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

HB 639-FN would also add RSA 491:7-c to authorize a blockchain dispute docket in the superior court. The docket would hear blockchain technology disputes when the parties consent by agreement or stipulation and the dispute concerns blockchain technology as defined in RSA 359-V. Covered matters include claims under RSA 359-V, contract or fiduciary duty claims, fraud, misrepresentation, business torts, statutory violations arising from blockchain technology dealings or transactions, and other complex blockchain-technology disputes.

The official docket shows HB 639-FN was introduced in the House on Jan. 9, 2025, passed the House on April 10, 2025, was re-referred in the Senate on May 15, 2025, advanced again in 2026, and went to a committee of conference before the conference report was filed and adopted. Because the official bill status still lists Chapter Number as none, this profile treats the measure as passed by both bodies but not yet chaptered or in force as of June 5, 2026. Editors should update the enacted date, chapter number and effective date if the governor signs the bill or if the General Court posts a chaptered act.