State finance: other; limitations on holding a digital asset; prohibit. Creates new act.
House Bill 4511 would create a new Michigan act restricting state and local government actions affecting digital assets. It would prohibit the state or any political subdivision from banning the holding of digital assets, requiring a permit or license to hold them, or imposing other impairments on holding them. The bill also bars additional taxes, withholding, assessments, or charges that are based solely on using a digital asset as the method of payment, while preserving taxes that would otherwise apply if the transaction were made in U.S. legal tender.
The bill further limits state agencies and departments from advocating for or supporting the testing, adoption, or implementation of a U.S. central bank digital currency. It also prohibits state and local governments from banning the operation of blockchain nodes, transfers of digital assets on blockchain protocols, or participation in staking. In addition, it provides that a person who only validates transactions for digital asset mining, node operation, or mining/staking services is not civilly liable. The bill defines key terms including blockchain, blockchain protocol, digital asset, mining, node, smart contract, and staking.
HB4511 would preempt state and local regulation in several areas involving cryptocurrency and blockchain activity by limiting licensing, permitting, taxation, and operational restrictions. It would create new statutory protections for digital asset holders, node operators, miners, stakers, and related service providers, and would constrain state agencies from endorsing a federal central bank digital currency. The bill would affect state finance and regulatory authority by carving out a broad legal safe harbor for digital asset use and blockchain network participation.
The available vote history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment, with the bill reported out 7-1 without amendment. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader public or member concerns. The vote pattern indicates substantial support in committee, though not unanimous.
The main points of contention implied by the bill are the limits it places on state and local authority, especially the prohibition on licensing, permitting, and other impairments related to digital assets. Another likely area of disagreement is the restriction on agency support for a central bank digital currency, which may be viewed as a policy statement against federal digital currency development. The bill’s civil liability protection for miners, node operators, and staking service providers may also raise concerns about accountability and consumer or regulatory oversight, although no transcript is available to show specific objections.