Representative Nathan Toman, R‑34 of Mandan, introduced House Bill 1184, saying the bill would allow the state treasury and State Investment Board to invest in physical precious metals and in digital assets that have a market capitalization exceeding $500,000,000,000 and that the change could permit “up to 500,000,000 and change” in such investments as a hedge against inflation.

The bill hearing drew testimony from industry advocates, state investment officials and banking representatives, and prompted questions from several members of the Industry, Business and Labor Committee about custody, risk and whether existing law already permits these investments.

The bill would allow investments in physical forms of precious metals — "it can't be an ETF in gold. It has to be physical gold or palladium or any sort of precious metals that fits that bill," Toman said. On digital assets he said the bill singles out assets with very large market caps and that the decision about which assets to buy would rest with the treasurer and the State Investment Board.

Eric Peterson, policy director at Satoshi Action Fund, framed the proposal as giving the treasurer another tool to protect state purchasing power. "Since that time, you can see that the value of dollars held by the state of North Dakota have declined somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%," Peterson said, and argued a modest allocation to bitcoin or gold would have offset much of that decline in recent years.

Witnesses described custody options the bill would permit: secure custody solutions, qualified custodians such as banks or custody providers, or holding assets through exchange‑traded products. Peterson told the committee the bill provides for those custody approaches and that some banks and sovereign investors are already holding digital assets.

Local business owners who testified in favor cast the change as a signal to industry. Aaron Hall of Sundog Mining, which operates bitcoin mining infrastructure, said the bill would "send a message" that North Dakota is open to innovation and could bring jobs and energy‑intensive businesses to rural communities. Jason Frey of Terrapin Operations said giving the treasurer additional tools is "enabling" rather than mandatory and argued the change would not by itself force investments.

Officials who testified neutral or raised cautions said the authority to invest differs across funds and governance structures. North Dakota State Treasurer Thomas Beadle said the investment boards and boards of trustees already have authority to make a wide range of investments, but he told the committee that the general fund likely would need explicit enabling legislation because of its deposit relationship with the Bank of North Dakota and statutory limits on working capital. "In terms of if we currently have direct holdings into crypto assets or precious metal assets, we do not," Beadle said.

Scott Anderson, chief investment officer at the Retirement and Investment Office (RIO), said RIO already has governance and asset‑allocation processes that allow a range of investments. He told the committee that assets such as gold and bitcoin do not produce cash flow and that RIO typically incorporates inflation hedges by using instruments with yield, real assets or infrastructure; he described bitcoin as volatile and cautioned that adding commodities without a clear implementation plan can create complexity for a pooled fiduciary portfolio.

Banking representatives urged caution about using operating or general fund deposits. Don Morgan, president and CEO of the Bank of North Dakota, and Rick Kleberg of the North Dakota Bankers Association said routing appropriated general fund dollars into volatile assets could reduce liquidity available to state agencies and to local banks; Morgan recommended excluding the general fund from any authority to invest in volatile asset classes.

Representative Toman also filed House Concurrent Resolution 3,001 to encourage the treasurer and the State Investment Board to consider selected state funds for digital asset and precious metal investments; he said the resolution exists to express legislative intent and could be adjusted to remove particular funds if the committee prefers.

The hearing did not include a committee vote on the bill or the resolution. Committee members asked several follow‑up questions about custody solutions, which state funds would be available, whether other states had analogous laws and how a cautious, phased approach might be implemented.

The committee recessed the hearing after testimony and moved on to other business.

Ending: The bill remains at the hearing stage. Supporters argued HB 1184 and HCR 3001 would give the treasurer and investment board added tools to hedge inflation and signal commercial openness; neutral witnesses and banking representatives urged guardrails, excluding appropriated general‑fund working capital and making implementation contingent on custody standards and the boards’ fiduciary processes.