Two bills discussed before the House Government Operations Committee would change how Michigan treats digital‑asset mining and whether the state may hold a limited portion of certain cryptocurrencies in a strategic reserve.

Representative Brian Pustumas, who introduced the measures, said Michigan must build a legal framework so policy keeps up with technology and suggested statutory guardrails for a crypto reserve, including a cap on the portion of state funds that could be invested and minimum market‑cap and federal regulation requirements for eligible assets. "Digital assets and cryptocurrency will be the foundation of the financial world," Pustumas said, framing the bills as preparatory and optional rather than mandatory.

Supporters included Kevin Wysocki of Anchorage Digital, who described custody risks for bearer assets and the need for regulated custody solutions. "Cryptocurrencies are bearer assets," Wysocki said. "If the assets are stolen or misappropriated, they are very difficult to claw back, much like lost or stolen cash." Anchorage described regulated bank custody and self‑custody technology as part of the bill’s custody options.

Tom McCarthy of Satoshi Action Fund urged the committee to treat digital‑asset mining the same as other data centers in industrial zones and argued mining can provide a flexible electrical load to help integrate renewables and support rural economic development. "This bill does not ask for special treatment for digital asset businesses. Instead, all this bill does is ensure that all data centers in industrial zones are treated equally," McCarthy said.

Opponents were represented by Judy Allen of the Michigan Townships Association, who said HB 4085 would preempt local zoning authority, eliminate public hearing requirements for special‑land‑use permits and force uniform treatment across industrial subzones. "This is a preemption of local authority," Allen testified, and she urged allowing local ordinances and public hearings to continue to apply.

Committee members pressed proponents on risk, local control and implementation. Representative Fitzgerald asked about volatility and the wisdom of capping the state’s exposure at 10% of certain funds; panelists noted other states have passed similar laws but are in early implementation and suggested an initial smaller allocation (for example, 1–3%) could be prudent while monitoring outcomes.

No final committee vote was taken on HB 4085 or HB 4087 during the hearing. Several organizations filed their positions via cards: the Michigan Environmental Council, the Sierra Club, Climate Cabinet and the Michigan Municipal League submitted opposition or concerns; the Michigan Department of Treasury indicated it did not wish to speak but had been engaged in the drafting process.