Committee Hears Testimony on Ohio 'Blockchain Basics' Bill, Questions Raised on Local Taxes, Mining and Pensions

At a second hearing on House Bill 116 before the House Technology and Innovation Committee, witnesses, the bill sponsor and committee members discussed provisions aimed at creating a statutory framework for blockchain and certain digital-asset transactions in Ohio. Testimony centered on tax treatment for small transactions, local-government tax restrictions, zoning protections for digital-asset "mining," and a provision about public pension evaluations that the sponsor said may be removed.

The bill sponsor, Representative Daniel Demetrio, said the measure — described to the committee as the "Blockchain Basics Act" — would insert definitions and a framework into the Ohio Revised Code so the state can treat digital assets consistently with other forms of commerce. "Blockchain is bigger than cryptocurrency," Demetrio told the committee, adding the law would give the legislature a base from which to later expand or alter regulation.

Witnesses representing industry and advocacy groups urged passage. Donovan O'Neil, state director of Americans for Prosperity Ohio, said HB 116 would "ban special taxes or fees on digital assets used for payments," and argued that uniform state rules would prevent a patchwork of local restrictions that can deter investment. Eric Peterson, policy director of Satoshi Action Fund, told the committee the bill protects "self custody of digital assets" and includes a tax provision that exempts transactions under $200 from capital-gains reporting, a figure he said mirrors the federal foreign-currency threshold. "If you are using a digital asset as a means of payment, any transaction under $200 will not be subject to a capital gains tax," Peterson said.

Supporters also described protections for digital-asset mining operations, saying the bill would allow mining to operate in industrial zones and protect hobby-scale miners so long as they do not create a noise or zoning nuisance. "Bitcoin miners are best understood as Bitcoin data centers," said Andrew Burchwell, executive director of the Ohio Blockchain Council, who described miners as flexible large industrial loads that can pair with energy-generation projects and provide tax revenue to local communities.

Committee members pressed witnesses on local control and fiscal impacts. Representative White asked whether the measure would prevent local governments from levying taxes on transactions; O'Neil and Demetrio replied that the bill does not forbid taxation but would require equal treatment so digital assets are not singled out for punitive taxes or fees. Members also probed the $200 dollar threshold and its suitability amid inflation; witnesses said the bill ties the exemption to an inflation-adjusted dollar threshold to avoid a burdensome reporting regime for small transactions.

Several lawmakers asked about energy demand and public-safety or community impacts related to mining. Witnesses said the industry tends to seek underused power and can provide grid flexibility, but also acknowledged mining can raise local concerns about noise or zoning compliance and would remain subject to applicable local permitting and nuisance laws.

Representative Demetrio told the committee he had met with OPERS (the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System) representatives and conceded the pension-investment language in the bill had created concern. "We're probably gonna take that language out or or drastically change it," he said, characterizing the provision as an instruction for analysis rather than an immediate policy change.

No committee vote on HB 116 occurred at the hearing. The committee heard public- and expert-witness testimony and indicated it will continue consideration of the bill at a later date.

The hearing record shows a range of issues remaining for lawmakers: how to balance uniform state rules with local control, the proper dollar threshold for small-transaction tax treatment, zoning and nuisance safeguards for mining operations, and whether public-pension investment language should remain in the bill. The committee recessed after concluding the hearing with no formal action on final passage.

For context, witnesses referenced the Ohio Revised Code, federal reporting practice for foreign-currency transactions, and examples of similar state laws enacted or moving in other states. Several witnesses said Ohio already hosts digital-asset businesses and mining operations and argued that clearer law could attract more firms and jobs.