HB 92, the NC Digital Assets Investments Act, would authorize the State Treasurer to invest certain state funds in qualifying digital assets, including cryptocurrency, stablecoins, nonfungible tokens, and other purely digital assets, subject to a third-party assessment and custody, risk, and compliance requirements. The bill caps such investments at 5% of the balance of any designated fund and limits the authority to funds already managed under the state’s existing investment statutes.
The bill also directs the Treasurer to study whether members of the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan and the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan should be allowed to invest in digital assets held through exchange-traded products. If deemed appropriate, and if the relevant retirement board agrees, the Treasurer and board could adopt rules on eligible investment vehicles, contribution limits, and educational materials for employees about digital asset risks.
In addition, HB 92 requires the State Bureau of Investigation, working with the Treasurer and law enforcement partners, to study the feasibility of creating a North Carolina Digital Asset Reserve to hold seized or forfeited digital assets. The study must address administration, custody, transfer procedures, and how to time sales to maximize revenue for the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund and local boards of education, with a report due to legislative oversight by March 1, 2026.
The bill would amend state law in Chapter 147 to create a new section governing digital asset investments by the Treasurer, and it includes contingency language that would repeal or revise that section if related bills, HB 506 or SB 709, become law. It takes effect immediately upon becoming law and would affect state investment practices, retirement plan administration, and potential handling of seized digital assets.
The overall sentiment appears cautiously supportive but exploratory, with the bill framed as a study-and-authorize measure rather than a full-scale mandate. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, but the structure of the bill suggests an effort to balance interest in digital assets with risk controls and oversight. Likely points of contention include the volatility and security of digital assets, whether public retirement funds should have any exposure to them, and whether seized crypto should be held by the state or liquidated for existing public purposes.
HB 92 would add a new statutory section to Chapter 147 authorizing limited digital asset investments by the State Treasurer, subject to independent review, secure custody, and a 5% cap on designated fund balances. It would also require a feasibility study on expanding digital asset investment options for certain state retirement and deferred compensation plans, and another study on creating a state digital asset reserve for seized or forfeited assets. The bill could affect the Treasurer, the Supplemental Retirement Board of Trustees, the SBI, local law enforcement, and the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund, while leaving final implementation dependent on future rulemaking or follow-up legislation.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no direct record of support or opposition in the materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to have been drafted in a measured, exploratory way, with safeguards, studies, and board approval requirements that may have been intended to make the proposal more acceptable to cautious lawmakers. The absence of recorded floor debate or vote history limits any stronger conclusion about legislative sentiment.
The main likely points of contention are whether state-managed funds should be exposed to digital asset risk, how to define and custody qualifying assets, and whether retirement plan participants should be allowed to choose digital asset investments at all. Another likely issue is the treatment of seized or forfeited digital assets: some stakeholders may prefer retaining them in a reserve to maximize potential value, while others may favor prompt liquidation for the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund and local education funding. Oversight authority, contribution limits, and the need for investor education would also likely be debated by fiscal, retirement, and law enforcement stakeholders.