New Hampshire enacts law allowing state treasurer to invest in Bitcoin
'The whole point,' Ammon said, 'is the federal government is not managing fiscal policy, monetary policy well, and I don't expect them to do any better. It's going to get worse.'
Advertisement
This legislation will give the treasurer more options to diversify the state's investment portfolios and pursue returns that beat inflation, Ammon said.
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'We'll see what she does with it,' he added.
While several other states are
New Hampshire is once again First in the Nation! 🎉
Just signed a new law allowing our state to invest in cryptocurrency and precious metals.
— Governor Kelly Ayotte (@KellyAyotte)
Dennis Porter, co-founder and CEO of Satoshi Action Fund — a Bitcoin policy group that produced model legislation that Ammon used to craft the version that New Hampshire adopted — said in a statement the state had just '
This law authorizes the state treasurer to invest up to 5 percent of public funds in digital assets held by a 'qualified custodian' that meets certain criteria spelled out in the law.
Advertisement
New Hampshire State Treasurer Monica I. Mezzapelle told The Boston Globe that her office may consider using money from certain state funds that have 'a more aggressive or long-term strategy' to invest in digital assets, but the volatility of such investments makes them unsuitable for funds the state uses to cover its ongoing expenses.
Mezzapelle said the funds that might be a good fit for such aggressive investments currently total about $30 million, which means the state could invest up to about $1.5 million in digital assets — that said, there are no plans to buy cryptocurrency immediately. This law just adds digital assets and precious metals to an 'extensive' menu of authorized options, she said.
Notably, a digital asset must have a market capitalization that averaged at least $500 billion in the preceding calendar year to qualify for state investment. That means Bitcoin, which has a market cap of roughly
While proponents of the legislation cited the market cap threshold as a guardrail to ensure taxpayers won't be suckered by fad-fueled 'memecoins' and other especially risky investments, skeptics like Democratic Senator Cindy Rosenwald said the state was effectively 'picking winners and losers' by selecting the arbitrary threshold.
Rosenwald told colleagues last week they shouldn't authorize the state treasurer to 'gamble' taxpayer money on a notoriously volatile digital currency.
'At a time when we're going to be making very difficult budget decisions driven by a shortage of available funds … I do not believe it is prudent to authorize legislation that could expose state and local finances to this level of risk and unpredictability,' she said.
Advertisement
But a couple of her GOP colleagues said they have full faith in Mezzapelle to consider the available options and make prudent investment decisions.
'I absolutely trust our treasurer … she's done such a great job investing our current funds,' said Senator Timothy P. Lang Sr.
Senator Daniel E. Innis — who is also a professor at the University of New Hampshire Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics — said he doesn't personally invest in Bitcoin and wouldn't advise others to do so.
'However, I think we need to trust the treasurer to do the right thing,' he said. 'These are folks who understand markets. They understand assets. They understand how to invest for the best return.'
This article first appeared in Globe NH | Morning Report, our free newsletter focused on the news you need to know about New Hampshire, including great coverage from the Boston Globe and links to interesting articles from other places. If you'd like to receive it via e-mail Monday through Friday,
Steven Porter can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
Vermont Democrat slammed over ‘disturbing' argument for more immigration: ‘We're not going to have anyone around to wipe our a–es'
Rep. Becca Balint (R-Vt.) has come under fire for suggesting President Trump's immigration crackdown will leave Vermonters without 'anyone around to wipe our a–es.' The congresswoman made the outrageous claim — which she herself called 'crude' — during a town hall in Newport, Vt., last week, in response to a question about US immigration policy. 'Our economy is completely bound up in immigration and migrant labor,' Balint told her constituents. 'We have to come to a place in Congress where it is no longer a political issue, but we see it as an existential issue for the country.' Advertisement 'If we don't have avenues for people to come here legally to work or to build a home here, I'm going to be really crude right now — we're not going to have anybody around to wipe our a–es because we don't have enough people in our country now to fill the jobs that we have.' 3 Balint made the crude comment during a town hall in Vermont on May 28. Becca Balient/YouTube 'We also want to make sure that we have an adult conversation in Congress' about immigration, Vermont's sole congressional rep continued. Advertisement Vermont Republican Party Chairman Paul Dame demanded that Balint apologize to Vermont's immigrant community for the 'disturbing sentiment' expressed in her remarks. 'Congresswoman Balint should apologize — not only for her crude choice of words, but more importantly for the disturbing sentiment that the primary purpose of immigration is to perform labor that she deems beneath the dignity of others,' Dame said in a statement. 3 Vermont's GOP chairman demanded Balint apologize for the remark. Becca Balient/YouTube 'At the heart of these remarks is an opinion so offensive and so profoundly out of touch that it reveals a fundamental lack of respect for those who come to this country — abiding by the rules — in pursuit of freedom, opportunity, and a better life,' he added. Advertisement Dame noted that immigrants in the Green Mountain State have held 'remarkable careers in high-tech fields,' served as 'world-class physicians' in Vermont hospitals, and are 'critical to our small business community, providing a wide array of goods and services that enrich our state.' 'The way Congresswoman Balint reduced Vermont's hard-working legal immigrants to little more than 'a– wipers' is embarrassing,' the GOP chairman argued. 'She owes them — and all Vermonters — an apology for such a shameful characterization.' 3 Balint, a former teacher, has served in the House of Representatives since 2023. AP The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) highlighted Balint's comments on Wednesday, arguing that the congresswoman was promoting 'open borders.' Advertisement 'While complaining about President Trump deporting illegal immigrants, Vermont Democrat Becca Balint claims: 'We're not going to have anyone around to wipe our a–es.' Democrats' goal is, was and always will be open borders,' the NRCC wrote on X. Mark Coester, the congresswoman's 2026 GOP opponent for Vermont's at-large congressional district, quipped that 'from this day forward,' Balint 'will not be remembered only for her incompetence but more for her INCONTINENCE.' 'We all have accidents in life but no Vermont residents ever required illegals to clean up a messy accident,' Coester wrote on X. Balint's office did not respond to The Post's request for comment.
Politico
23 minutes ago
- Politico
Centrist Democrats are convinced they hold the answers to their party's problems
Democrats are still staring down bleak polling numbers about their party's brand, even as President Donald Trump's favorability also has dropped. The answer to Democrats' troubles at WelcomeFest, the moderate Democrats' Coachella, include: purity tests are toxic, being unpopular on the social media site Bluesky is cool and winning again means running to the center. That's the gospel speakers preached on stage Wednesday in the basement of a Washington, D.C., hotel, where hundreds of centrist elected officials, candidates and operatives gathered to commiserate over the 2024 election results and chart their version of the path forward for the Democratic Party. 'There's a hunger for people to work together, to try to find solutions and to talk in common sense terms,' said Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), who won a much-heralded special election in 2024 by calling out his own party on immigration policies. 'I think that there's a lot more elected officials that are willing to speak up about that because they don't want to lose,' Suozzi told reporters after his appearance. Wednesday's daylong conference, which represented a who's-who of center-left Democratic politics, from analytics guru David Shor to Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin to New York Rep. Ritchie Torres, was the latest sign that moderate Democrats believe they are ascendant in the party, looking to influence its posture heading into the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential primary. Seven of the 12 House Democrats who won in Trump districts last year participated in the event, including Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Adam Gray of California. 'Most Americans are Blue Dogs,' Gluesenkamp told writer Matt Yglesias, and noted only 10 Democrats remain in the once-robust Blue Dog Caucus. 'Politics has become irrelevant to most people because it has excluded the things that touch their life. It's about making politics more relevant to more people.' But the rifts within the Democratic Party are still evident. Speakers railed against progressive groups like Justice Democrats, Our Revolution and Indivisible, who they said forced the party into unwinnable positions — and weren't focused on winning majorities. 'When you read the documents of the national Indivisible group, they spell it right out, as plain as day, that they're throwing out the Blue Dogs and New Dems,' said Golden. 'Their goal is to divide the Democratic coalition until they are 100 percent in the image of the progressive caucus.' Progressives, for their part, called WelcomeFest a 'convention of corporate ghouls' that represents 'a massive step backwards for a Democratic Party that just lost working-class voters at a historic level,' said Usamah Andrabi, Justice Democrats communications director. 'Everyday people are not interested in elitist, technocratic, piecemeal solutions to the massive crises they're facing. They just rejected that exact Democratic Party in November,' Andrabi said. 'Voters want to see a Democratic Party that unites the working class against the handful of billionaires and corporations robbing them blind.' Andrabi also noted that Justice Democrats focus on safe Democratic House primaries, not competitive seats. Liam Kerr, a co-founder of Welcome PAC, which launched in 2022, said now that the 'leftist fever dreams died down,' they're growing a movement with 'a sense of, 'We need to think differently, we need to do things differently.'' 'It's attracting a lot of people who are kind of a full generation behind the last wave of centrist Democratic entrepreneurs,' Kerr added. Data analyst Lakshya Jain kicked off the opening presentation by arguing that Janelle Stelson, a Democrat who challenged Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), was a better performing candidate than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in 2024. 'This seems like a really controversial idea on Twitter, but I suggest that the Democratic Party take lessons on how to win elections and how to win voters from people who have won more votes than most other Democrats,' Jain said to applause. 'If we run candidates that D.C. finds appealing, we're probably going to lose. There's an inverse correlation between what you guys all find appealing and what the median voter finds appealing.' And like any other Democratic event in 2025, WelcomeFest was interrupted by protesters, who shouted at Torres during his interview. They were played off by the producers of the event, who blasted Carly Simon's 'You're So Vain.'
American Press
31 minutes ago
- American Press
At the session: See how SW La. lawmakers are voting
(Special to the American Press) Southwest Louisiana legislators, for the most part, have supported the more controversial measures of the current regular session. Rodney Schamerhorn, R-Hornbeck, for example, was the only one of the area's 4 senators and 9 representatives to vote against a bill shielding the state's nursing homes from large lawsuit penalties. Senate Bill 134 from Sen. Thomas Pressly, R-Shreveport, will require lawsuits against nursing home management companies to go through the state's Medical Malpractice Act, which caps the payout that a company could be on the hook for. The cap is $500,000, but the individual owner or provider would pay only $100,000, while the state's Patient's Compensation Trust Fund would make up the rest. Pressly's bill passed the Senate 26-11 and the House 58-37. Voting for the bill were Republican Sens. Mark Abraham of Lake Charles, Heather Cloud of Turkey Creek, Mike Reese of Leesville and Jeremy Stine of Lake Charles and GOP Reps. Ryan Bourriaque of Grand Lake, Dewith Carrier of Oakdale, Les Farnum of Sulphur, Brett Geymann of Moss Bluff, Chuck Owen of Rosepine and Troy Romero of Jennings. Reps. Wilford Carter, D-Lake Charles, and Phillip Tarver, R-Lake Charles, were recorded as absent. Abraham, Cloud, Reese and Stine voted for SB 19 by Sen. Michael 'Big Mike' Fesi, R-Houma. The legislation would authorize Louisiana to dispense the controversial ivermectin drug without requiring a prescription from a patient's physician. The bill passed the Senate 28-8 and the House 67-26. Reps. Bourriaque, Carrier, Farnum, Owen, Romero and Schamerhorn voted for the bill. Carter, Geymann and Tarver were recorded as absent. House Bill 148 by Rep. Jeffery 'Jeff' Wiley, R-Maurepas, was a measure strongly pushed by Gov. Jeff Landry. It will allow the state insurance commissioner to reject auto insurance increases even when they are justified by factual information. Opponents, including Commissioner Tim Temple, said it would cause insurance companies to not want to do business in Louisiana. The bill passed the House 68-34 and the Senate 26-9. Reps. Bourriaque, Carter, Farnum, and Romero voted for it. Reps. Carrier, Geymann, Owen, Schamerhorn and Tarver voted against the bill. Abraham, Cloud, Reese and Stine voted for the bill. The vote on HB 674, an ethics bill, was unanimous in the House and 34-2 in the Senate. Twelve of the 13 Southwest Louisiana lawmakers voted for the bill that would limit the investigatory powers of the state Board of Ethics and make investigations more difficult. Carter was reported as absent. The Advocate in an editorial on the bill said there was a lot packed into it, 'so you would expect it to have sparked spirited debate on the House floor. Yet not a single Republican or Democrat raised any questions.' HB 693 that is described as 'a sprawling revision of Louisiana's campaign finance laws and disclosure' passed the House 77-16. Bourriaque, Carrier, Farnum, Owen, Romero, Schamerhorn and Tarver voted for the bill. Carter and Geymann were recorded as absent. The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee made some amendments to the bill Wednesday. SB 2 by Sen. Fesi that was designed to take fluoride out of public drinking water cleared the upper chamber 24-10. Abraham, Cloud, Reese and Stine voted for the bill. However, the House Health and Welfare Committee with a 5-10 vote killed the bill. Dentists and doctors who testified in committee said if fluoride were taken out of water, 'We're going to see a significant amount of decay.' SB 101 by Sen. Blake Miguez, R-New Iberia, would allow those 18 and older who can carry a gun without obtaining a permit and those with permits to carry it up to a school's property line. Current law says a concealed carry permit is needed to have a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill passed the Senate 28-11 and the House 72-23. Abraham, Cloud, Reese and Stine voted for the bill. Bourriaque, Carrier, Farnum, Geymann, Owen, Romero and Schamerhorn voted for the bill. Carter and Tarver were recorded as absent. The bill went back to the Senate with amendments with which the House must approve.
