Bitcoin breaks 100,000 again, is it driven by US state governments hoarding coins?

Background: Starting at the State Level, Two States Have Already Incorporated Bit into Reserves

For crypto users, the most anticipated policy after Trump's election was definitely the United States adopting Bitcoin as a strategic reserve. However, over three months after the election, the central government has yet to take action. Does this mean the hope for Bitcoin strategic reserves is shattered? Not necessarily. In fact, within just a short week, two U.S. states have officially written Bitcoin into their state treasuries, with five more states in the legislative pipeline. Analyzing the funding sources, allocation limits, and custody modes reveals significant differences, reflecting local governments' varying tolerance for "high-volatility, decentralized assets". This article critically examines who is truly strategizing, who is engaging in political showboating, where potential black swan events might lurk, and predicts the next impact of this "official HODL" wave on market liquidity and narrative premium.

How Are New Hampshire and Arizona Playing?

Within 48 hours, New Hampshire and Arizona completed legislation and received gubernatorial signatures, launching their first year of state treasury crypto holdings. The two states' paths and risk control mechanisms are almost completely opposite, fully exposing their different political and economic objectives.

New Hampshire HB 302 | Active Allocation, Single BTC Focus, Ceiling Set

New Hampshire's approach most resembles "Treasury asset diversification". The provision authorizes the state treasurer to exchange up to 5% from the general fund and rainy day fund directly into digital assets with a market cap consistently above $50 billion for a year, which effectively only Bitcoin qualifies.

Legislators emphasize that the 5% cap is a safety valve: if the fiscal pool expands or shrinks, the crypto holding amount will adjust accordingly, avoiding a one-time heavy position. However, the provision is vague about whether funds must be proportionally sold when the fund size reduces, leaving an accounting gray area.

For custody, HB 302 provides three options:

1. State treasury self-managed multisig cold wallet;
2. Managed by licensed Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) or other regulated banks;
3. Held through SEC or NFA approved Bitcoin ETF

If choosing a cold wallet, self-management must meet seven technical standards, including geographic dispersion, hardware isolation, and annual penetration testing, to minimize private key leakage risks. However, choosing an ETF means the state treasury only receives a trust certificate - transparency returns to traditional financial ledgers, contradicting the on-chain "visible and traceable" advantage.

For information disclosure, the state treasurer must quarterly report holdings, costs, and unrealized gains/losses; bill-supporting legislators verbally promised to "publish on-chain addresses" to enhance transparency, but this isn't mandatory. The provision also comprehensively bans leverage, lending, or mortgaging, intending to zero out credit risk at the cost of abandoning all yield enhancement methods.

New Hampshire follows a "Treasury asset diversification" approach - small proportion, single asset, extremely conservative, but directly tying taxpayers to the BTC price roller coaster.

Arizona HB 2749 | Passive Incorporation, Zero Tax Burden, Staking Allowed

Arizona considers "not using a single tax dollar" as its core selling point. The new law allows the state government to transfer unclaimed crypto assets (including those with incomplete but identifiable private keys) to a newly established "Bitcoin and Digital Asset Reserve Fund" after a three-year search period.

The Arizona state legislature. Henceforth, this fund can legally accept all derivative airdrops and staking rewards, creating a compound interest cycle without additional budget approval from the legislature.

Even bolder is the asset scope - the provision has no market cap or liquidity threshold; anything falling into state hands can enter the treasury. Theoretically, from Bitcoin to meme coins with only tens of thousands of dollars in daily trading volume could be incorporated. The state diversifies risk through holdings but also exposes itself to high-risk zones of small coin price manipulation.

Custody must be entrusted to compliant institutions licensed in Arizona; the period allows assets to participate in full-chain staking to earn returns. This makes the state treasury an on-chain active player for the first time - if validators are slashed or smart contracts fail, losses will also fall on public sector accounts.

In liquidity scheduling, HB 2749 only allows the state treasurer to exchange up to 10% of non-Bitcoin holdings for cash to subsidize general fund expenditures. The BTC portion is legislatively locked; it cannot be used unless separately legislated. Information disclosure adopts a dual-check of "annual report + parliamentary appropriation required", but without mandatory on-chain address disclosure, transparency is lower than decentralization standards.

Arizona treats BTC as "found money generating interest", cleverly expanding idle value through staking and airdrops, avoiding taxpayer scrutiny, but also placing the state treasury on the front lines of on-chain operational risks.

What should we, as investors, pay attention to?

1. Buying Scale: NH, even if fully invested, is only $300-400 million, with limited impact on BTC liquidity; AZ is initially even less significant.
2. Narrative Boost: Official endorsement + "zero tax" story is enough to lift short-term sentiment, but cash flow will not immediately surge.
3. Risk Control Comparison: NH uses "upper limit + cold wallet" for low returns; AZ uses "zero-cost Staking" for high technical/contract risks, both models are not a panacea.
4. Black Swan: If BTC experiences a single-day drop > 20%, NH may be forced to write down due to accounting evaluation; AZ needs to face Staking Slashing or custody accidents, which could be enough for opponents to overturn in state legislature

Core Differences