Sponsor pitches 'blockchain basics' bill to protect private keys, recognize blockchain trusts and create a dispute docket

Representative Keith Ammon described House Bill 639 as a package of clarifications and protections aimed at encouraging blockchain‑related commerce in New Hampshire. The proposal would: recognize rights to hold private digital currency and self‑custody of private keys; prohibit discriminatory local rules aimed specifically at blockchain infrastructure; recognize blockchain‑based trusts under state trust law; and create a blockchain dispute docket in the superior court system, with that docket slated to take effect Jan. 1, 2026.

Ammon said the bill incorporates recommendations from the governor’s blockchain commission and model language used in other states. “This protects individuals rights to use digital assets for payments and self custody,” Ammon told the committee, describing provisions meant to give businesses and consumers regulatory certainty.

Why it matters: The bill aims to provide legal clarity around a rapidly developing technology, reduce uncertainty that can drive businesses away, and give New Hampshire courts a mechanism to resolve specialized disputes. Supporters argued the state needs clear, consistent rules to attract firms and avoid ad‑hoc regulation by local governments.

Key points from testimony and questioning

Provisions and goals. Ammon highlighted definitions for terms such as smart contracts, staking and nodes; protections for “self custody” and private keys; and an express protection against local discriminatory ordinances that target mining or other blockchain operations. The bill also proposes a judicial “blockchain dispute docket” modeled on New Hampshire’s business docket to concentrate expertise.

Questions from lawmakers. Committee members pressed on environmental and infrastructure impacts, particularly energy use, noise and water. Representative Spears and others expressed concern the bill could preempt local controls needed to manage large‑scale mining operations, noting examples in other states. Ammon said the bill does not carve out blockchain operations from environmental or noise rules; rather it aims to prevent targeted, discriminatory ordinances and allows localities to offer incentives steering operators toward energy‑efficient consensus methods such as proof‑of‑stake.

Legal and regulatory clarifications. Attorney Ian Huett and other supporters said the bill simply codifies legal clarity about which activities fall inside securities law, trust law, and contract law, and argued that the absence of clarity invites novel enforcement and litigation that deters innovation. Huett also explained that a dedicated dispute docket would only create recurring judicial expense if and when a significant volume of blockchain litigation emerges in the state; initially an existing judge would handle the docket along with other caseloads.

Public testimony. Tax practitioner Patrick Devereux and other residents testified in favor, saying clearer definitions and a judicial forum would reduce ambiguity for businesses and taxpayers. Opponents or cautionary voices included lawmakers worried about energy grid impacts and the need for additional study of large‑scale operations.

Next steps. The committee closed the public hearing and sent the bill to subcommittee for further review. Members requested more information about energy, noise and local land‑use interactions, plus follow‑up on whether existing statutory tools already protect consumers without new carveouts.

Ending

Supporters said the bill would make New Hampshire a friendlier jurisdiction for blockchain commerce by reducing legal uncertainty; critics urged guardrails, energy impact analysis and tighter local control options before moving forward.