WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 92

Tuscaloosa County; full-time mayors authorized to participate in Employees' Retirement System of Alabama, constitutional amendment

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Bryan Brinyark

Authorizes the NC State Treasurer to invest designated state funds in digital assets under strict custody, third-party review, and a 5% cap, plus related studies.

Third Reading in Second House
#tuscaloosacounty
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 92

Summary — HB 92: NC Digital Assets Investments Act

Status (latest): Regular Message Sent to Senate (House passed committee substitute; third committee substitute filed). Introduced: February 12, 2025 (House). Sponsor: Representative Ross.

Main purpose

Authorize the North Carolina State Treasurer to invest certain public funds in qualifying digital-asset investment products, establish strict safety/oversight criteria for those investments, study potential participant-level and law‑enforcement uses of digital assets, and require related feasibility/study work.

Key provisions (final committee substitute)

  • Authorizes the State Treasurer to invest cash of “designated funds” (the State’s General Fund, Highway Fund, and the special funds listed in G.S. 147‑69.2(a), including major retirement and trust funds) in digital assets only if conditions are met.
  • Definitions:
    • Digital asset = virtual currency, cryptocurrency, native electronic asset, stablecoin, non‑fungible token, or other exclusively digital assets that confer economic/proprietary rights.
    • Designated funds = funds described in G.S. 147‑69.1(b) and G.S. 147‑69.2(a).
    • Secure custody solution and private key are defined; custody/security requirements are emphasized.
  • Investment preconditions:
    • The Treasurer may invest in digital assets only after obtaining an independent assessment by a third‑party consultant that:
    • Digital assets are maintained with a secure custody solution.
    • The potential investment is appropriate for the fund’s total-portfolio circumstances.
    • The control environment meets institutional investment‑industry standards for risk/compliance and operational robustness.
  • Aggregate limit: any investment in digital assets shall not exceed 5% of the balance of the designated fund (per the final substitute).
  • Supplemental actions required:
    • Treasurer must examine feasibility of permitting members of the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan and the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan to elect investments in exchange‑traded digital‑asset products and propose implementation rules (education, contribution limits, vehicles).
    • State Bureau of Investigation (with Treasurer and other law‑enforcement partners) must study creation of a “Digital Asset Reserve” to hold seized/forfeited digital assets and report recommendations, including proposed legislation, to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on General Government by March 1, 2026.
  • Repeal/coordination: contains clauses to coordinate or defer to other bills (HB 506, SB 709) if enacted.

Who is affected

  • State Treasurer’s Office (new authority, oversight responsibilities).
  • Designated state funds and fiduciaries (pension systems, trust funds).
  • State employees/retirement plan participants (potential new investment option subject to feasibility/board approvals).
  • Law enforcement and courts (procedures for seized/forfeited digital assets).
  • Vendors: custody providers, third‑party consultants, auditors.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Benefits: potential diversification and higher returns if digital assets perform; formalizes custody and governance requirements; creates framework for managing seized digital property.
  • Risks/costs: digital‑asset volatility, custody/security and operational costs, regulatory/compliance complexity, potential fiduciary liability if investments underperform; implementation requires governance, staffing, and vendor oversight.
  • Fiscal: not quantified in bill; effect depends on size of allocations, performance, and costs of custody/oversight.

Timeline / procedural notes

  • House: multiple committee substitutes adopted (Committee Substitute #2 filed 4/16/25). House-level actions completed; bill transmitted to Senate (per file header: “Regular Message Sent To Senate”).
  • Required SBI study report due March 1, 2026.
  • Further action awaits Senate committee consideration and any concurrence with other related bills referenced in the text.

This summary focuses on the enacted language in the bill’s most recent committee substitute (Edition 3). Earlier drafts included different thresholds (e.g., a 10% cap and a market‑capitalization requirement); the final substitute narrowed the cap to 5% and added third‑party assessment and study requirements.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.