Florida’s House Bill 487 and Senate Bill 550, which aimed to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve by allowing up to 10% of certain state funds to be invested in Bitcoin, were indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration on May 3, 2025, according to the Florida Senate website.
The state legislature adjourned its 2025 session on May 2 without passing these bills, despite some early bipartisan support for HB 487. This marks a setback for Florida’s crypto ambitions, aligning it with states like Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma, where similar Bitcoin reserve proposals have failed. A Bitcoin reserve, where a state or entity holds Bitcoin as part of its financial assets, can offer several potential benefits, though they come with risks and depend on market conditions.
Bitcoin is often viewed as a “digital gold” due to its fixed supply cap of 21 million coins. Unlike fiat currencies, which can be printed, Bitcoin’s scarcity can protect against inflation, preserving purchasing power if traditional currencies weaken. Adding Bitcoin to a reserve diversifies assets beyond traditional holdings like bonds, stocks, or gold. This can reduce portfolio risk, as Bitcoin’s price movements often have low correlation with conventional markets.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 17 (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025) today for early bird discounts. Do annual for access to Blucera.com.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register to become a better CEO or Director with Tekedia CEO & Director Program.
Bitcoin has historically delivered significant returns, with its value rising from cents to tens of thousands of dollars over a decade. A reserve could benefit from future price appreciation, boosting state funds for public services or investments. Holding Bitcoin can position a state as a forward-thinking hub for blockchain and crypto industries, attracting businesses, talent, and investment. For example, Florida’s proposed bills aimed to make it a crypto-friendly state, potentially spurring economic growth.
Bitcoin operates on a decentralized blockchain, reducing reliance on centralized financial systems. Its cryptographic security makes it resistant to counterfeiting or unauthorized access, offering a robust store of value if properly managed.
While these benefits are compelling, Bitcoin’s volatility, regulatory uncertainties, and environmental concerns (due to mining energy use) pose risks. A reserve would need careful management, including secure storage (e.g., cold wallets) and policies to mitigate price swings. Florida’s postponed bills, for instance, proposed limiting Bitcoin to 10% of certain funds to balance risk and reward.
The indefinite postponement of Florida’s House Bill 487 and Senate Bill 550, which aimed to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve by allowing up to 10% of certain state funds to be invested in Bitcoin, carries significant implications for Florida’s financial strategy, the broader cryptocurrency adoption landscape, and highlights a deepening divide in political and public sentiment toward digital assets.
The bills, introduced in February 2025, sought to authorize Florida’s Chief Financial Officer and State Board of Administration to invest in Bitcoin, potentially allocating up to $1.5 billion based on the state’s $14.6 billion reserve budget. This could have positioned Florida as a pioneer in diversifying its treasury with a decentralized digital asset, potentially hedging against inflation or fiat currency volatility.
By withdrawing these bills, Florida foregoes a chance to strengthen its financial resilience, especially in a context where Bitcoin’s price was reported at $94,428.35 around the time of the postponement. The state’s decision to stick with traditional assets reflects caution but may limit its ability to capitalize on Bitcoin’s long-term growth potential, as argued by proponents like Rep. Webster Barnaby.
Setback for State-Level Crypto Adoption
Florida’s withdrawal aligns it with at least seven other states—Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Montana, Oklahoma, and Utah—that have also rejected or stalled Bitcoin reserve bills in 2025. This collective hesitation signals a broader slowdown in state-level efforts to integrate cryptocurrencies into public finance, despite earlier optimism fueled by President Trump’s federal Bitcoin reserve pledge.
The failure to advance these bills, which passed the Insurance and Banking Subcommittee unanimously in April 2025, suggests a loss of momentum after initial bipartisan support. It may discourage other states from pursuing similar legislation, particularly as only 36 bills across 19 states remain active, with Texas and New Hampshire as leading contenders.
Nationally, the move underscores challenges in aligning state policies with federal initiatives, such as Trump’s executive order for a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The lack of progress in Florida and other states could complicate the federal push, as state-level adoption was seen as a complementary effort to legitimize Bitcoin as a reserve asset.
Florida’s legislative session, which adjourned on May 2, 2025, prioritized over 230 other bills on issues like water fluoridation, state park protections, and school smartphone bans, sidelining crypto legislation. The extended session until June 6 focused on budget negotiations, but crypto reserves were not revisited, indicating a lack of urgency or consensus. Samuel Armes of the Florida Blockchain Business Association suggested that budget negotiations could still provide a pathway to reintroduce the bills’ language, but the current withdrawal reflects a prioritization of less controversial issues.
The postponement has frustrated crypto advocates, as seen in posts on X expressing disappointment and skepticism about political promises. Comments like “politicians… will delay it once, twice, three times” reflect a growing distrust among Bitcoin enthusiasts, who see repeated state-level failures as evidence of bureaucratic resistance. This setback may galvanize advocates to refine their strategies, as suggested by recommendations to simplify bill proposals, build stronger alliances with treasury officials, and enhance public outreach to counter legislative caution.
The postponement of Florida’s Bitcoin reserve bills highlights several divides in political, economic, and societal perspectives on cryptocurrency adoption. While the bills initially garnered bipartisan support in committee, the lack of Republican support in the broader legislature was a key factor in their failure. Pro-crypto lawmakers like Rep. Barnaby and advocates like Samuel Armes pushed for innovation, but fiscal conservatives likely prioritized stability amid concerns about Bitcoin’s volatility, as echoed in other states like South Dakota and Montana.
Florida’s withdrawal contrasts with federal efforts under Trump’s executive order, revealing a disconnect between state-level caution and national ambitions for a Bitcoin reserve. This divide complicates the broader narrative of the U.S. as a crypto leader, as states like Arizona also face gubernatorial pushback. The decision reflects a preference for traditional financial instruments over decentralized assets like Bitcoin, which some lawmakers view as “untested” or risky, as seen in Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs’ veto rationale.
Proponents argue that Bitcoin’s decentralized nature protects against inflation and centralized control, but skeptics prioritize historical data and regulatory clarity. States like New Hampshire and Texas, which continue to advance Bitcoin reserve bills, demonstrate higher risk tolerance compared to Florida and others that have withdrawn, highlighting varying economic strategies among states.
