South Dakota rejected the Bitcoin reserve bill, citing volatility and the lack of real-time use as key reasons. The lawmakers of the state followed Montana's example.
Rejection of the Bitcoin Reserve Bill
South Dakota lawmakers disappointed Bitcoin advocates by voting against the Bitcoin reserve bill. As per the latest updates, the House Commerce and Energy Committee deferred the HB 1202 to the 41st day of the session, effectively rejecting it.
Positions of Advocates and Opponents
The Bitcoin reserve proposal was introduced by State Representative Logan Manhart and aimed to allocate 10% of public funds to Bitcoin investment. However, State Investment Officer Matt Clark expressed concerns about Bitcoin's volatility and speculative nature, stating that Bitcoin does not generate income like other assets. During his speech, he emphasized: 'Bitcoin does not have any underlying physical use, and if it’s stolen, it cannot be recovered since it is untraceable.'
Future of Bitcoin in State Investments
Despite legislative resistance, advocates argue that Bitcoin can serve as a store of value in an inflationary economic environment. Given the rejection in both Montana and South Dakota, the question remains: will other states consider investing in cryptocurrency?
The rejection of the Bitcoin reserve bill by South Dakota raises questions about states' readiness to invest in digital currencies, despite their volatility and inherent risks.
