Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Assets Blockchain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House subcommittee advances amended digital‑assets bill after treasurer, banking and blockchain experts weigh in
Summary
A Commerce and Consumer Affairs subcommittee advanced an amended digital‑assets bill after the state treasurer and banking regulators discussed scope and limits and experts urged special protections for private cryptographic keys.
A Commerce and Consumer Affairs subcommittee meeting moved an amended digital‑assets bill forward after lawmakers and outside experts discussed limits on state engagement with cryptocurrencies and civil‑procedure protections for private keys.
Sponsors said the version they circulated removes references to stablecoins and to state lending or staking authority, and reduces a proposed maximum allocation from 10% of a fund to 5%. The treasurer participated in a working session and indicated the changes were intended to keep the authority available as a tool without committing the treasury to immediate purchases.
Josh Hipps, attorney at the New Hampshire Banking Department, told the panel the state currently does not have a statutory regime for cryptocurrency custody and that federal deposit insurance limitations (FDIC) constrain banks from holding these assets on their balance sheets. "The FDIC provides the insurance for banks, and so the banks basically kowtowed what the FDIC wants them to have," Hipps said, adding New Hampshire’s statutes are currently silent and would need revision if custodial practice at banks changes.
Committee members also debated civil‑procedure language that would govern court orders compelling disclosure of private cryptographic keys. One concern was that provisions in the draft appeared to create a higher threshold for compelled disclosure than existing statutes that govern judicial access to bank accounts and other assets. Ian Hewitt, a volunteer board member of the New Hampshire Blockchain Council, argued that private keys are qualitatively different from bank accounts because third‑party custodians can reverse or mitigate bank losses while a compromised private key can immediately irreversibly transfer holdings. He recommended protections tailored to that risk while retaining court authority to compel disclosure in serious cases.
The committee adopted an amendment and voted to advance the bill as amended. A recorded committee tally during the session showed an approval margin consistent with a unanimous recommendation for the committee present.
