Bitcoin has exceeded 100,000 more, and is it driven by the US state government’s hoarding of coins?

**Background: Started at the state level, two states have included Bit in

the reserve**

For cryptocurrency users, the most anticipated political view that Trump has been able to implement after his election is definitely that the United States adopts Bitcoin as its strategic reserve, but for more than three months after the election, the central government has not taken action for a long time. Is the dream of hope for Bitcoin’s strategic reserves shattered? Otherwise, in fact, in the past week, two states in the United States have officially written Bitcoin into the state database, and five other states are in the legislative stage of arrows. The dismantling of the funding sources, allocation caps and custody models adopted by each state are actually very different, reflecting the different tolerance of local governments to "high volatility, decentralized assets". This article disassembles with a skeptical perspective, who is really planning, who is making a political show, and where is the potential black swan hiding? And deduce the next impact of this "official HODL" wave on market liquidity and narrative premium.

How to play New Hampshire and Arizona?

In just 48 hours, New Hampshire and Arizona completed legislation and signed by the governor, opening the first year of the State Coin Holdings. The paths adopted by the two states are almost inconsistent with the risk control mechanism, fully exposing the choices under different political and economic goals.

**New Hampshire HB 302｜Active funding, single deposit of BTC, and

ceiling**

New Hampshire's approach is most like "diversification of finance-level assets". The provision authorizes the state finance minister to directly exchange the general fund and rainy day funds for digital assets with a market value of more than $500 billion for a year in a row. In fact, only Bitcoin qualifies.

Legislators emphasized that the 5% upper limit is the safety valve: if the fiscal pool expands or shrinks, the amount of holding the currency will be adjusted accordingly to avoid a one-time heavy position. However, the provisions are unclear about "whether the fund size is forced to be sold in proportion" and leave behind an accounting treatment area.

On hosting, HB 302 provides three paths:

1. The state database manages multiple signature cold wallets;
2. Submitted to a licensed "Special Purpose Deposit Institution (SPDI)" or other regulated banks;
3. Holding through SEC or NFA approved Bitcoin ETF

If you choose a cold wallet, self-management must comply with seven technical standards, including geographical dispersion, hardware isolation and annual penetration testing, and block the risk of private key leakage as much as possible. But if you choose an ETF, the state database will only get the trustee receipt - transparency back to the traditional financial account book, which is inconsistent with the advantage of "visible and chasing" on the chain.

In terms of information disclosure, the state finance ministers need to list positions, costs and unrealized profits and losses in their fiscal reports quarter by quarter; lawmakers who support the bill verbally promised to "disclose the on-chain address" to strengthen transparency, but this did not include the mandatory clause. The provision also completely bans leverage, lending or mortgage, with the intention of zeroing in credit risk, and the cost is to abandon all means of strengthening interest.

New Hampshire is taking the "financial asset diversification" route, with a small proportion, single asset, and extremely conservative, but it also directly tied taxpayers to the BTC price roller coaster.

**Arizona HB 2749｜Passive inclusion, zero tax burden, allowable

staking**

Arizona regards "not using a dime tax" as its core selling point. The new law allows state governments to transfer unowned crypto assets (including those with damaged private keys but identifiable) into the newly established "Bitcoin and Digital Assets Preparation Fund" after the three-year search period expires.

Arizona Legislature. From now on, the fund can also accept all derivative airdrops and staking rewards in accordance with the law, forming a compound interest cycle without adding budget to the parliament at all.

What’s more bold is the target scope. The provisions do not have any market value or liquidity thresholds. As long as they fall into the hands of the state capital, they can enter the warehouse. In theory, meme coins with daily trading volume of only tens of thousands of dollars may be included; the state capital relies on multiple positions to diversify risks, but also exposes itself to the high explosion zone of small coin prices.

Trust must be handed over to a licensed compliant in Arizona; assets are allowed to participate in the entire chain staking to earn profits during this period. This makes the state library an active player on the chain for the first time. If the verifier slashes or the smart contract error occurs, the losses will also fall on the public department’s account.

In liquidity scheduling, HB 2749 only allows state finance ministers to exchange up to 10% of non-bitcoin positions for cash to subsidize general fund expenditures; the BTC part is legislated to lock the positions and cannot be used unless otherwise legislated. Information disclosure adopts the dual control of "annual report + parliamentary funding to be used", but there is no forced disclosure of on-chain addresses, and the transparency is lower than the decentralized standard.

Arizona treats BTC as "the money you picked up is charged for interest", amplifying idle value through staking and airdrops, cleverly avoiding taxpayers' doubts, but also puts the state warehouse on the frontline of on-chain operational risks.

What should we pay attention to as investors?

1. Buying Scale: Even if NH is full, it is only US$300 million to US$400 million, which has limited impact on BTC liquidity; AZ is even more dropping into the bucket in the early stages.
2. Narrative bonus points: Official endorsement + "zero tax burden" story is enough to boost short-term sentiment, but cash flow will not pour in immediately.
3. Risk control comparison: NH exchanges "upper limit + cold wallet" for low returns; AZ exchanges "no capital staking" for high technology/contract risk, both models are not panacea.
4. Black Swan: If BTC declines in a single day > 20% , NH may be forced to impair due to accounting evaluation; AZ will have to face staking slashing or custody accidents, which are enough to allow the opposition to reverse the case in the state legislature

Core Differences

Dimension	New Hampshire	Arizona
Motivation positioning	Diversification of public funds	Revitalization of
ownerless assets
Funding hot	Actively allocate funds and buy immediately	Passive inclusion,
no new purchases
Position structure	100 % BTC (market value threshold)	BTC + any asset
entering the warehouse
Revenue play	Pure price spread, leverage ban	Staking/airdrop, compound
profit
Liquidity export	Can be sold in full and cashed out	BTC permanently locks,
non-BTC up to 10% funding available
Political bets	Directly custody of taxpayer wallet	"Zero Cost" Political
Statement

What are the situation in other states?

State no| schedule| Latest progress| Key terms and conditions| Potential buying scale/mechanism highlights| Major obstacles or risks
---|---|---|---|---|---
Texas| high| The Senate passed in February and has been out of the Finance Committee of the House of Retirement; it will be ranked in the entire hospital before June 2.| • Establish a Texas strategic Bitcoin reserve • Source of funds: state grant + private donation; initially proposed to allocate $21 million • The target market cap is ≥ 500 B USD (BTC only)
• Managed by the Comptroller and requires a biennial performance report| If the allocation is made, it will become the first large state to actively buy coins with public funds; the scale is still <1% BTC daily transaction| House of Representatives schedule and party tug-of-war; if the deadline is overdue, the meeting will be automatically
Oklahoma| middle| The House of Representatives passed on March 77:15, but on April 14, the Senate Taxation Committee rejected it and the current period failed.| • Allow state database + pension funds to allocate BTC| If resurrected, pension-level funds may be injected| Pensions are exposed to be strongly opposed by trade unions and Democrats, and the terms must be deleted before there is room for re-recommendation
Illinois| Low| HB 1844 Completed the first reading only, still stuck in Rules Committee| • Only donated BTC is collected, and the state database cannot buy it on its own initiative • 5 years of forced HODL can only be used| It depends entirely on the intention to donate; short-term buying is almost zero| Without new public funds exposure, political resistance is low but it is difficult to have substantial impact
Missouri| Stagnant| The public listening was completed on March 24, and no further schedule was scheduled afterwards| • Donations are acceptable and allow state warehouses to self-manage cold wallets| In theory, you can buy it on your own initiative, but subsequent funding is required; progress is stagnant| Legislative agenda is crowded and has low priority
Florida| Removal of the case| HB 487 / SB 550 "Case Removal Ended" on May 6| • It was originally planned to allow public funds to invest in BTC, without a market value threshold| Withdrawal = Short-term buying returns to zero| Senate financial leaders say "too high volatility and inconsistent finance"; friendly states temporarily avoid the limelight

1. The key is Texas: If successful arrangements and funding are allocated before June 2 will mark the first "large-scale public money buying coins" case, and the narrative will be magnified. On the contrary, even Texas is blocked, making it more difficult for the subsequent states to mobilize.
2. Buying ≠ legislation: even if the bill passes, budget allocations must still be decided separately; investors should continue to track the appropriations bill and the on-chain wallet address disclosure.
3. The terms and conditions vary greatly: from "active allocation + single-bet BTC" in Texas to "pure donation + five-year lock-up" in Illinois, the risk/return curves vary, and the subsequent state may choose the best to mix.

**Conclusion: Does buying scale bring substantial effects? Emotions hype

first**

New Hampshire allows the state to convert up to 5% of the general/rainy day funds into Bitcoin. The state's fiscal annual budget is less than US$7 billion, and even if the full position is full, it is only US$300 million. Arizona even "passively incorporates" crypto assets without owners for more than three years, which is difficult to encounter even a billion in the short term. In contrast, Bitcoin's 24-hour spot trading volume has remained at US$60 billion for a long time. Even if the state buys in one go, it only accounts for <0.1% of the market's daily liquidity, and the sound of legislation is greater than the actual amount of funds; the price reaction is more about emotional trading, rather than imbalance in spot supply and demand.

The two state bills were signed on May 6 (NH) and May 8 (AZ) respectively; Bitcoin rose from 96 K to nearly 100 K within 48 hours, an increase of about 3% in a single week. Axios statistics show that the number of social media discussions related to the keyword "Bitcoin Reserve" increased by more than 240% during the same period. However, the trading volume has not increased simultaneously, pointing to "headline rally" rather than a large amount of spot absorption.

In addition, Glassnode pointed out that the actual annualized fluctuations on the 30th have fallen back to 45–50%, hitting the low range since 2021, but the long-term historical range is often more than 60%, which is still not comparable to traditional assets. If Black-Swan drops in the day > 20%, New Hampshire's 5% position will immediately face impairment pressure, and Arizona will also bear the additional risk of staking slashing or custody contract errors.

The official HODL narrative has been "half-finished" by the market. What really determines the market is the speed of legislation implementation and the actual amount of fiscal appropriations. Only when the three things of legislation + appropriation + on-chain address are established at the same time can we say that the main reason for the rise in Bitcoin price can be attributed to the state's strategic reserves.