State government; Oklahoma State Treasurer; digital assets; precious metals; Digital Asset Property Fund; effective date.
HB1891 would expand the Oklahoma State Treasurer’s authority to invest certain public funds in precious metals, large-cap digital assets, and stablecoins. It defines key terms such as exchange-traded product, qualified custodian, secure custody solution, stablecoin, and staking, and sets conditions for how these assets must be held and managed. The bill limits these investments to a maximum of 10% of the relevant public fund account at the time of investment and restricts digital asset investments to assets with an average market capitalization above $500 billion over the prior calendar year.
The bill also authorizes state retirement funds to invest in registered exchange-traded products and creates a new Digital Asset Property Fund within the unclaimed property program. That fund would receive digital assets obtained through criminal asset forfeiture, not civil forfeiture, and would be used to preserve and return digital assets to rightful owners who lost them through fraud, theft, or other criminal acts. The Treasurer would be directed to establish rules for taking custody of such assets from law enforcement, selecting a qualified custodian, and returning assets to residents.
In addition to custody and investment authority, HB1891 allows the Treasurer to stake eligible digital assets through a third party and to loan digital assets if doing so does not increase state financial risk. Any excess earnings from the Digital Asset Property Fund would go to the State General Revenue Fund and could be appropriated for digital-asset-related law enforcement purposes if allowed by law. The Treasurer could also use assets in the fund to support the State Rainy Day Fund.
The bill’s broader policy effect would be to place digital assets and precious metals more directly into state treasury management and to create a formal state framework for custody, investment, and recovery of digital property. It would amend state law in Title 62 by adding new sections governing treasury investments, retirement fund products, and the new property fund, with an effective date of November 1, 2025.
There is little recorded debate or voting history in the available materials, so overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee testimony or floor discussion. Based on the bill text, the measure appears generally supportive of expanding state financial flexibility and digital-asset infrastructure, while the main points of potential contention are the risks of investing public funds in volatile assets, the use of staking and lending, the reliance on third-party custodians, and the exclusion of civil forfeiture assets from the new fund.
HB1891 would add new provisions to Title 62 of the Oklahoma Statutes authorizing the State Treasurer to invest specified public funds in precious metals, certain large digital assets, and stablecoins, subject to a 10% cap per account. It would also authorize state retirement funds to invest in registered exchange-traded products and create the Digital Asset Property Fund as part of the unclaimed property program. The bill would require new rules for custody, staking, lending, asset recovery, and selection of qualified custodians, and it would direct the Treasurer to study the use of precious metals and digital assets in state finance.
No committee transcripts or vote tallies were provided, and the bill’s recorded status shows only that it was referred to Rules after second reading. As a result, there is no documented public sentiment in the supplied materials. The bill’s text suggests a favorable posture toward digital assets and alternative reserve assets, but the absence of discussion means support or opposition cannot be attributed to any specific lawmakers or stakeholders from the record provided.
The most likely areas of contention are the prudence of allowing public funds to be invested in digital assets and precious metals, the 10% investment cap, and the bill’s authorization for staking and lending digital assets. Another possible point of dispute is the requirement to use qualified custodians or secure custody solutions, which raises operational and cybersecurity concerns. The creation of the Digital Asset Property Fund may also draw scrutiny because it accepts digital assets from criminal forfeiture but expressly excludes civil forfeiture, and because it gives the Treasurer broad rulemaking authority over recovery and disposition of assets.