Georgia Senate Bill 228, titled State Depositories; State Depository Board to allow the state treasurer to invest in bitcoin; provide, was a 2025-2026 Georgia Senate proposal focused on state-held bitcoin. As drafted, SB 228 would have amended Georgia’s state depository statutes to let the State Depository Board permit the state treasurer to invest in bitcoin and to require state policies for accepting, storing, and transacting in bitcoin. As of June 11, 2026, the bill has not been enacted. The last bill-specific action was referral to the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee on February 21, 2025, and the 2025-2026 Georgia legislative session later adjourned sine die.
The proposal is best understood as a state treasury and custody bill rather than a broad crypto-market regulatory framework. It did not create exchange licensing rules, consumer-facing token disclosure rules, mining rules, or a general digital-asset supervisory regime. Its operative focus was whether bitcoin could be added to the list of assets that the board may permit the state treasurer to use for state-fund investments, and how any state-owned bitcoin would be safeguarded if the authority were granted.
Key Provisions of Georgia SB 228
SB 228 would have revised O.C.G.A. Section 50-17-63, which governs state depository and investment powers, by adding bitcoin to a statutory list of assets the State Depository Board may permit the state treasurer to invest in. The text used discretionary language: the board “may permit” investment in bitcoin. That structure matters because the bill did not appear to mandate an immediate state purchase, establish an automatic bitcoin reserve, or set a fixed allocation of state funds.
- Bitcoin investment authority: The bill would have added bitcoin as a permitted asset category, subject to State Depository Board authorization.
- Treasury policy development: The state treasurer, in consultation with the board, would have been required to develop policies and procedures for bitcoin acceptance, storage, and transactions.
- Custody and security standards: The bill referenced secure custodial technologies, cold storage, and digital asset management best practices for state-owned bitcoin.
- Qualified custodians: The policies could involve qualified, United States-based entities approved by the board to serve as custodians of bitcoin owned by the state.
Bitcoin Definition and Custody Scope
SB 228 would have added a new O.C.G.A. Section 50-17-68. The proposed section defined bitcoin as a decentralized digital asset created by a peer-to-peer network that operates without a central authority or banks. It also defined cold storage as a method of storing private keys required to transact in bitcoin, tied to a secure physical location protected from unauthorized access and isolated from network connections.
The custody provisions were significant because the bill covered all bitcoin “received or otherwise owned” by the state, not only bitcoin acquired as an investment under the amended depository statute. In practical terms, that language would have made the state’s bitcoin handling policies relevant to investment activity as well as any other channel through which the state might come to own bitcoin.
Status and Legislative Timeline
SB 228 entered the Senate hopper on February 20, 2025. The next day, the Senate read and referred it to the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee. Public bill-tracking records reviewed for this profile do not show passage out of committee, passage by either chamber, enrollment, gubernatorial approval, or an effective date.
Because the 2025-2026 Georgia regular session has adjourned sine die, this profile treats SB 228 as expired for CryptoSlate taxonomy purposes, while preserving the last official bill action as “Senate Read and Referred.” Editors should verify the Georgia General Assembly bill page before publication in case the legislature updates archived status labels or a substantially similar measure is refiled in a later session.
Crypto Policy Relevance
For crypto-law tracking, SB 228 sits at the intersection of government crypto holdings, custody, banking access, and payments policy. It reflected a state-level approach that would have used existing treasury governance structures rather than creating a standalone reserve authority. The bill’s importance is therefore procedural as much as substantive: it showed one model for placing bitcoin within a state investment statute while pairing that authority with custody-policy requirements.