On the morning of March 7, the Texas Senate officially voted to pass Bill SB-21 with a vote count of 25-5. The bill will now be reviewed by the Texas House of Representatives before being signed into law by the governor.
If signed by the Governor of Texas, Texas will become the first state in the U.S. to have a government-managed Bitcoin reserve, setting a precedent for other states to begin holding Bitcoin as a strategic asset.
Before SB-21 emerged, Texas had another bill called H.B. 1598 proposed by Representative Giovanni Capriglione.
While both bills aim to incorporate crypto into Texas’s government reserves, SB-21 offers a more flexible approach, allowing the state to invest and adjust its asset portfolio based on market conditions. A key difference is that SB-21 is not bound by the state treasury, enabling Texas to trade according to market fluctuations to maximize profits.
In contrast, H.B. 1598 requires the government to purchase and hold Bitcoin for at least five years without trading or adjusting the investment portfolio. For this reason, SB-21 is considered more flexible and practical.
Senator Charles Schwertner, who proposed SB-21, emphasized:
“Texas cannot keep money in a savings account with a 1% interest rate and hope to keep up with inflation. We need to adopt a long-term investment mindset and seize opportunities from Bitcoin.”
Texas has long been known as the most crypto-friendly state in the U.S., earning the title of the global “crypto capital.” The state is home to many of the largest Bitcoin mining operations in the world and has been chosen by El Salvador to open its second Bitcoin embassy. Recently, Texas has also been one of the pioneering states proposing Bitcoin reserve legislation, reinforcing its leading position in this area.
Currently, there are 32 Bitcoin Reserve bills proposed in 24 different states across the U.S., with notable mentions including Maryland, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Massachusetts. Montana is the only state where the House has rejected such a proposal, with a vote count of 41-59, citing concerns about the risks to the budget from tax revenue.