To amend sections 145.11, 742.11, 3307.15, 3309.15, 3770.06, and 5505.06 and to enact section 135.146 of the Revised Code to address investments in exchange-traded products by the state retirement systems, to permit the Treasurer of State to invest certain interim funds in digital assets, and to name this act the Ohio Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve Act.
HB18, titled the Ohio Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve Act, would authorize the Treasurer of State to invest certain interim state funds in digital assets, but only under narrow conditions. The bill defines “digital asset” broadly, but limits eligible investments to exchange-traded products with an average market capitalization of at least $750 billion over the prior 12 months. It also caps such investments at 10% of the balance of each eligible fund and requires that the assets be held through a secure custody solution, a qualified custodian, or as an exchange-traded product issued by a registered investment company. The Treasurer could also loan the digital assets if doing so does not increase financial risk, and could adopt rules to administer the program.
In addition to the new digital-asset authority, the bill amends the investment statutes governing the state retirement systems for public employees, police and fire, teachers, school employees, and highway patrol. Those changes expressly state that the systems are not prohibited from investing in exchange-traded products as defined in the new section, while preserving existing fiduciary language requiring prudent, diversified investing for the exclusive benefit of members and beneficiaries. The bill also repeats language directing the retirement boards to maximize returns and not make investment decisions primarily to influence social, environmental, or corporate governance policy.
The bill would affect several state funds and agencies, including the General Revenue Fund, the Budget Stabilization Fund, the Deferred Prizes Trust Fund, the state retirement systems, and the State Lottery fund structure. It would also amend the lottery statute to allow investment of lottery gross revenue fund balances in digital assets as permitted by the new section. Existing sections in the Revised Code would be repealed and replaced as needed to incorporate the new investment authority and related custody rules.
Overall sentiment in the available materials appears limited and mostly procedural, because the bill was only introduced and had not yet advanced to votes or recorded committee debate. The bill’s framing suggests support for expanding state investment options and modernizing custody rules for cryptocurrency-related products, while still emphasizing risk controls, market-cap thresholds, and fiduciary duties. Because there are no transcripts or votes, there is no recorded public split in the provided history.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the use of public money in digital assets, the size and volatility of the crypto market, and whether the bill’s restrictions are sufficiently protective. The retirement-system provisions may also draw scrutiny because they explicitly bar investment decisions motivated by social or environmental policy, language often associated with anti-ESG legislation. Supporters would likely focus on diversification, return enhancement, and the narrow eligibility criteria; opponents would likely question financial risk, custody security, and whether the state should authorize crypto exposure at all.
HB18 would create new statutory authority for the Treasurer of State to invest specified interim public funds in digital assets and would add a new section defining eligible assets, custody requirements, concentration limits, and rulemaking authority. It would also amend the investment statutes for five state retirement systems and the state lottery fund to clarify that exchange-traded products are permissible investments under the revised framework. The bill would therefore alter state investment law across multiple funds and agencies while preserving existing fiduciary standards and repealing inconsistent prior language.
The available record shows no committee testimony, floor debate, or votes, so there is no documented legislative consensus or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to proponents of cryptocurrency and broader investment flexibility, while also trying to reassure cautious observers through strict eligibility, custody, and concentration limits. The overall tone is pro-innovation but risk-aware.
The likely controversy centers on whether state funds should be exposed to digital assets at all, even with a 10% cap and a very high market-cap threshold. Another likely point of contention is the bill’s anti-ESG language, which prohibits investment decisions made primarily to influence social, environmental, or governance policy; that provision may be viewed by some as unnecessary or ideological. Supporters would emphasize fiduciary discretion, diversification, and the narrow definition of eligible products, while critics would focus on volatility, custody/security concerns, and the policy implications of directing public investment strategy.