To amend sections 301.30, 504.04, 715.013, 718.01, 1315.01, and 5747.01 and to enact sections 1352.01, 1352.02, 1352.03, and 1352.04 of the Revised Code to enact the Ohio Blockchain Basics Act to address mining, taxation, and regulation of digital assets.
HB116, the Ohio Blockchain Basics Act, is a broad digital-asset bill that would create new state policy protections for cryptocurrency and related technologies. It defines terms such as blockchain, digital asset, digital asset mining, staking, hardware wallet, self-hosted wallet, node, and blockchain protocol, and then uses those definitions to set statewide rules for how digital assets may be treated. The bill would prohibit state agencies and political subdivisions from barring individuals from accepting digital assets as payment for lawful goods and services or from taking custody of digital assets through hardware or self-hosted wallets.
The bill also limits local regulation of digital asset mining. It allows mining in residential zones if local rules are followed, permits mining businesses in industrial zones, bars local governments from adopting mining-specific rules that do not also apply to similarly situated businesses, and gives mining businesses a court appeal if rezoning or redistricting is alleged to be discriminatory. In addition, it says that engaging in mining, staking, exchanging one digital asset for another, developing exchange software, or operating blockchain nodes does not by itself require a money transmitter license, and it states that mining and staking services are not securities or investment contracts for purposes of Ohio law.
HB116 would also change tax law at the state and local level. It prohibits the General Assembly, counties with charter government, townships under limited home rule, and municipal corporations from imposing taxes, fees, assessments, or similar charges on digital assets used as payment when the charge is based on the use of the asset itself, while preserving taxes that would apply if the transaction were done in U.S. dollars. The bill amends Ohio municipal income tax and state income tax definitions to exclude certain capital gains from the sale of digital assets used as payment, subject to a small-dollar threshold that would be indexed for inflation. It also updates related tax definitions and exemptions in the municipal income tax code and Ohio adjusted gross income provisions.
Beyond regulation and taxation, the bill directs each state retirement system to evaluate the risks and benefits of investing in exchange-traded funds that hold digital assets, consult with such ETFs where practicable, and report findings and recommendations to the General Assembly within one year. The act would be known as the Ohio Blockchain Basics Act and would apply some of its income-tax amendments to taxable years ending on or after the effective date.
The bill’s overall reception appears favorable in the House, at least at the committee and floor stages reflected in the voting history. It received unanimous favorable passage in the House Technology and Innovation Committee and then passed the House 70-26, suggesting substantial support but not unanimity. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record does not show detailed debate, but the vote split indicates that the bill drew some opposition even as it advanced with a clear majority.
HB116 would significantly expand state-level protections for digital asset use and mining while limiting the ability of local governments to impose digital-asset-specific taxes or restrictions. It would amend municipal income tax and state income tax statutes, add new definitions and prohibitions in the Revised Code, and create a new chapter governing blockchain-related activity. The bill would also affect money transmitter licensing by excluding certain blockchain activities from licensure requirements and would require state retirement systems to study digital-asset ETF investments, potentially influencing future public pension investment policy.
The available voting history suggests generally positive sentiment toward the bill in the House, with unanimous committee approval and a strong floor majority. That said, the 70-26 House vote shows that a meaningful minority opposed the measure, indicating some concern or disagreement with its approach to digital assets, local control, taxation, or retirement-system investment exposure. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific arguments for or against the bill are not documented in the provided materials.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s preemption of local authority and its treatment of digital assets for tax and regulatory purposes. Opponents may object to restricting counties, townships, and municipalities from taxing or regulating digital assets and mining operations, as well as to exempting certain blockchain activities from money transmitter licensing and securities treatment. Supporters likely view the bill as providing legal certainty, encouraging innovation, and preventing discriminatory or duplicative local regulation. The House vote margin suggests these issues were debated, even though the committee vote was unanimous.