HB 1029 would create two new statutory frameworks in North Carolina: the Digital Asset Financial Act and the North Carolina Stablecoin Act. The first framework authorizes state-chartered banks and credit unions to provide digital asset custody, staking, and transaction services, subject to advance notice or regulatory approval, written customer agreements, reserve requirements, annual independent audits, cybersecurity and anti-money laundering programs, and restrictions such as a ban on rehypothecation and proprietary trading. It also defines digital assets as personal property and sets rules for subcustodians, disclosures, recordkeeping, and enforcement by the Commissioner of Banks or the Administrator of Credit Unions.
The bill also amends North Carolina’s unclaimed property laws to specifically address digital assets. It adds a five-year abandonment period for digital asset accounts, requires holders to report and, when possible, transfer abandoned digital assets in native form to a Treasurer-designated qualified custodian, and allows the Treasurer to liquidate assets that cannot be custodied or would cost more to administer than they are worth. It further authorizes the Treasurer to stake unclaimed digital assets, with staking rewards accruing to the State, and requires digital assets held by the Treasurer to be maintained for at least three years before sale.
The stablecoin portion of the bill establishes a licensing and supervision regime for payment stablecoin issuers operating in North Carolina. It limits issuance to permitted issuers, sets reserve requirements at 100% of outstanding stablecoins in eligible reserve assets, requires monthly reserve attestations and public disclosures, and gives the Commissioner broad authority to examine, suspend, revoke, or penalize issuers. The bill also creates pathways for trust companies, insured depository institutions, insured credit unions, and certain foreign entities to issue stablecoins, while tying state rules to the federal GENIUS Act and requiring state standards to meet or exceed federal minimums.
The bill’s impact on state law would be substantial, especially for banking regulation, consumer disclosures, custody standards, and abandoned property administration. It would expand the powers and responsibilities of the banking regulators and Treasurer, create new compliance obligations for financial institutions and stablecoin issuers, and add new definitions and procedures to Chapters 53, 54, 116B, and 36F of the General Statutes. It also exempts compliant stablecoin issuance from state money transmitter licensing and creates a misdemeanor penalty for knowingly issuing stablecoins without required authorization.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and procedural history appears generally supportive and policy-driven, with no recorded committee transcript opposition or recorded votes in the provided materials. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to provide a clear regulatory framework and align state law with emerging federal standards, which typically indicates a pro-innovation but supervisory approach. The main points of contention likely concern the scope of regulatory authority, the strict 100% reserve and audit requirements, the treatment of foreign issuers, and the balance between consumer protection and market flexibility. Another likely area of debate is the Treasurer’s authority to stake unclaimed digital assets and retain the rewards for the State.
HB 1029 would add new Articles 26 and 27 to Chapter 53, materially expanding North Carolina banking law to regulate digital asset custody, staking, transaction services, and stablecoin issuance by state-chartered institutions and licensed issuers. It would also amend Chapter 116B to create digital-asset-specific abandoned property rules, including reporting, transfer, custody, liquidation, and staking provisions, and would update Chapter 36F to exclude the new banking-law definition of digital asset from the trust code. The bill gives the Commissioner of Banks, the State Banking Commission, the Credit Union Commission, and the State Treasurer new rulemaking, examination, and enforcement responsibilities, while also creating new compliance, disclosure, reserve, and recordkeeping duties for covered institutions and issuers.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee debate. Based on the bill’s detailed regulatory structure and its references to federal parity and the GENIUS Act, the measure appears to be framed as a modernization and consumer-protection bill rather than a deregulatory one. The available procedural history shows the bill moving through committee substitute versions and then being referred to the Senate Rules and Operations Committee, which suggests continued legislative interest and at least some institutional support.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s regulatory burden and the extent of state oversight over a rapidly evolving financial sector. Financial institutions and stablecoin issuers may object to the 100% reserve mandate, audit and reporting requirements, restrictions on proprietary trading and rehypothecation, and the limits on foreign issuers. Consumer advocates or regulators may instead focus on whether the bill provides enough protection given the risks of custody, staking, slashing, cybersecurity incidents, and stablecoin runs. The Treasurer’s authority to stake unclaimed digital assets and keep staking rewards for the State could also draw scrutiny, as could the bill’s preemption-style provisions that defer to federal law when state requirements are more restrictive.