Pennsylvania Bitcoin Strategic Reserve Act

HB 2664 framed Bitcoin as a potential reserve asset for public funds in response to inflation and economic uncertainty. The bill’s declaration of purpose stated that inflation had eroded the purchasing power of state-managed assets and that Pennsylvania should have access to assets such as Bitcoin to protect against that erosion.

The operative provisions were permissive rather than mandatory. The bill used “may” language for the State Treasurer and for retirement systems, meaning the proposal would have created authority to invest but would not itself have required an allocation. Because the measure expired without enactment, Pennsylvania public funds did not receive new statutory Bitcoin investment authority under this bill.

The proposal would have allowed the State Treasurer to invest unexpended, unencumbered, or uncommitted money from the General Fund, the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund, and other investment funds managed directly by the State Treasurer in Bitcoin or digital assets.

HB 2664 would have capped the amount invested from any covered fund during a calendar year at 10% of the total amount deposited in that fund at the time of the investment. The cap applied fund-by-fund rather than as a single statewide portfolio cap.

The bill contemplated two holding structures for Bitcoin or digital assets acquired by covered funds: direct holding by the State Treasurer through a secure custody solution using a qualified custodian, or exposure through an exchange-traded product issued by an investment company registered in Pennsylvania. The bill defined qualified custodians to include certain federal or state chartered banks, trust companies, special purpose depository institutions, and Commonwealth-regulated custodial companies.

HB 2664 also would have allowed the State Treasurer to loan Bitcoin or digital assets if doing so did not increase financial risk to the Commonwealth. The bill would have required the Treasurer to promulgate regulations for that lending authority.

For state retirement funds, the bill did not authorize direct Bitcoin custody. Instead, it would have allowed the State Employees’ Retirement System, the Public School Employees’ Retirement System, and any other state retirement system to invest unexpended, unencumbered, or uncommitted retirement fund money in exchange-traded products.

The bill would have applied only to Pennsylvania state-level treasury and state retirement fund investment authority. It would not have regulated private crypto users, exchanges, miners, stablecoin issuers, or digital asset service providers, and it would not have created a consumer-facing crypto licensing regime.