Investments of Public Funds in Bitcoin:
HB 487 would authorize Florida’s Chief Financial Officer and the State Board of Administration to invest certain public funds in Bitcoin. The bill creates a new statutory section defining Bitcoin, exchange-traded products tied to Bitcoin, secure custody solutions, private keys, and qualified custodians. It permits the CFO to invest in Bitcoin from the General Revenue Fund, Budget Stabilization Fund, state agency trust and agency funds, and other eligible state funds, subject to a cap of 10 percent of the total funds in any account. It also allows Bitcoin acquired by the state to be held directly, through a qualified custodian, or through a regulated exchange-traded product, and authorizes lending of Bitcoin under rules adopted by the CFO if the loans do not increase financial risk.
The bill also amends existing investment statutes to add Bitcoin as an authorized investment for state money and for the System Trust Fund managed by the State Board of Administration. It revises related provisions so that public funds may be invested in Bitcoin alongside existing permitted securities, and it exempts Bitcoin-related public deposits and investments from certain public deposit security requirements. In addition, taxes and fees paid in Bitcoin would be transferred to the General Revenue Fund, with the General Revenue Fund reimbursing the original designated fund in U.S. dollars.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it would expand Florida’s public investment authority beyond traditional securities into a volatile digital asset class. It would create new operational and custody requirements for state-held Bitcoin, establish a framework for Bitcoin loans, and alter how state agencies handle Bitcoin payments. It would also affect the state’s treasury management, the retirement system’s investment options, and the application of public deposit security rules under chapter 280.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly favorable toward Bitcoin as an inflation hedge and a tool for protecting state reserves. The findings section argues that inflation erodes state purchasing power and that Bitcoin has appreciated over time and is increasingly accepted as a treasury asset. Although there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, the bill’s introduction and structure suggest an affirmative policy push to normalize Bitcoin in public finance.
The main point of contention is likely risk: the bill seeks to limit exposure by capping investments at 10 percent and requiring secure custody, but it still authorizes a highly volatile asset for public funds. Potential concerns include market volatility, fiduciary responsibility, custody and cybersecurity risks, and whether lending Bitcoin could expose public assets to loss. Because the bill died in the Government Operations Subcommittee, it appears the proposal did not advance, likely reflecting unresolved concerns about prudence, implementation, or broader policy support.
HB 487 would amend Florida statutes governing state treasury investments, public deposits, and retirement-system investments to expressly authorize Bitcoin as an eligible investment. It would create s. 17.573, F.S., add Bitcoin to the list of authorized investments in ss. 17.57 and 17.61, and permit the State Board of Administration to invest System Trust Fund assets in Bitcoin. It would also exempt Bitcoin-related public deposits and investments from certain security requirements in chapter 280 and establish rules for custody, lending, and reimbursement of Bitcoin-denominated tax and fee payments.
The bill is framed in strongly pro-Bitcoin terms, emphasizing inflation protection, financial resilience, and the growing legitimacy of Bitcoin as a store of value. The absence of recorded committee debate or votes limits direct evidence of legislative sentiment, but the bill’s failure to advance out of the Government Operations Subcommittee indicates that support was not sufficient to move it forward. Overall, the proposal appears to have been introduced as an affirmative expansion of investment authority, but not one that secured enough consensus to pass committee review.
The central controversy is whether public funds should be exposed to Bitcoin’s price volatility and operational risks. Supporters, as reflected in the bill text, view Bitcoin as an inflation hedge and a diversification tool for state reserves. Likely opponents would focus on fiduciary prudence, cybersecurity, custody, liquidity, and the possibility that lending Bitcoin could increase risk despite the bill’s safeguards. Another likely point of contention is the bill’s broad reach, since it would allow Bitcoin investments across multiple state funds, including general revenue and retirement assets.