Michigan has inched closer to potentially holding digital assets in its state reserves. Lawmakers confirmed that House Bill 4087 moved to its second reading on Thursday and has now been referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
Good to Know
Introduced back in February by Representatives Bryan Posthumus and Ron Robinson, the measure amends the Michigan Management and Budget Act to let the state treasurer allocate up to 10% of its “countercyclical budget” and “economic stabilization fund” into cryptocurrency.
While the text does not specifically name Bitcoin, it defines eligible assets broadly as digital currencies secured by encryption, operating independently of a central bank. That leaves the door open for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other decentralized tokens.
The legislation also permits the state to loan out its crypto holdings in order to generate returns, provided that it does not introduce additional financial risk.
The bill outlines strict conditions for storage:
These safeguards are designed to address the risks that come with public entities holding digital assets.
If the bill passes, Michigan would join a small but growing group of U.S. states exploring crypto as part of their fiscal strategy. New Hampshire, Arizona, and Texas already have laws permitting state treasurers to hold Bitcoin or other crypto assets.
Meanwhile, attempts in Montana, Connecticut, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania have failed. Beyond those, 17 other states currently have pending proposals on crypto reserves, according to Bitcoin Reserve Monitor, like Illinois, Georgia and Utah.
Michigan now joins Massachusetts and Ohio in moving bills through the committee process, underscoring the growing interest at the state level even as federal policy remains unsettled.
The debate comes at a time when state-level initiatives have slowed after a flurry of Bitcoin reserve bills in 2023 and 2024. Michigan’s move reignites the discussion, particularly with fiscal stabilization funds potentially being diversified into digital assets.
Advocates argue that limited exposure—such as the proposed 10% cap—could provide upside potential without overwhelming risk, while critics warn of volatility and custody challenges. For Michigan, the bill’s detailed security language is meant to ease those concerns.