South Dakota advances Bitcoin investment with updated bill

A member of the South Dakota House of Representatives has revived a bill that was put on hold approximately a year ago by introducing a new measure that would allow the state to invest public funds in Bitcoin. 

Representative Logan Manhart proposed the Bitcoin reserve bill, HB 1155, on Tuesday in South Dakota’s legislature. HB 1155 would allow the State Investment Council to devote up to 10% of state revenues to Bitcoin in an effort to promote “strong money” and a “strong state.”

South Dakota advances Bitcoin investment with updated bill

Under the revised bill, any Bitcoin purchased as an investment would need to be held either directly by the State Investment Council using a secure custody solution or by a competent custodian acting on its behalf. As an alternative, a regulated investment company would offer an exchange-traded product that exposes the state to Bitcoin.

The proposed bill mandates that private keys be kept in a hardware-secured, encrypted environment and used exclusively via end-to-end encrypted channels. These private keys must also be under the sole authority of the State Investment Council. 

According to the bill, the custody system must enforce strict access rules and rely on password-less authentication stored on government devices.

The law further requires private-key hardware to be kept in at least two geographically distinct, secure data centers to reduce operational and security risks. It also requires a multi-party governance structure where all user actions are tracked and recorded to authorize transactions. 

Under the law, the custody provider is also required to maintain a disaster recovery strategy, conduct frequent code audits, and penetration tests of its systems.

Following the new custody and security provisions, the overall proposal remains unchanged, largely mirroring Manhart’s earlier 2025 plan. 

Under the earlier proposal, the Bitcoin reserve bill would legally add Bitcoin to the list of assets the State Investment Council is permitted to own, alongside traditional securities such as government bonds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). 

However, if the legislature passes the revised bill and signs it into law, South Dakota would join a few U.S. states that have enacted legislation regarding cryptocurrency or Bitcoin reserves. As of January 2026, Texas, Arizona, and New Hampshire had enacted legislation permitting their states to store confiscated crypto or invest in Bitcoin. However, legislators in other states have put out legislation along these lines.

Federal Bitcoin reserve faces legal barriers

On January 16, West Virginia State Senator Chris Rose introduced legislation known as “the Inflation Protection Act” that would modify the state’s code to permit the treasury to invest in precious metals, certain digital assets, and stablecoins.

Under the bill, Rose proposed that the state’s board of treasury be allowed to make investments in stablecoins, digital assets with a market valuation of more than $750 billion from the prior year, and precious metals. 

According to the bill, any digital asset purchased by the state’s treasury may be held by a qualified custodian, through a safe custody solution, or in an exchange-traded product (ETP). The U.S. government or certain state governments would have to grant regulatory approval for any stablecoins that were purchased.

The bill was presented during the U.S. Senate’s postponement of a markup for a bill that would create a structure for the U.S. market for digital assets.

If the bill is approved and signed into law, the state’s treasury could be exposed to Bitcoin, the only crypto asset to meet the market cap requirement as of January.

However, there are still legal and administrative challenges in the way of federal efforts to create a U.S. Bitcoin reserve.

White House Crypto Council Director Patrick Witt noted that although President Trump signed an executive order in March 2025 establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a Digital Asset Stockpile, its implementation has been slowed by complex legal provisions. He also pointed out that the executive order did not explicitly permit direct Bitcoin purchases.

Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.