The Strategic Digital Asset Reserve Act of Maryland, filed as House Bill 51 in the 2026 Maryland Regular Session, was a House proposal to create a state digital asset reserve framework. The bill would have established the Maryland Digital Asset Reserve Fund as a special, nonlapsing fund administered by the State Treasurer and used as a reserve asset through cryptocurrency investment. As of this profile’s June 11, 2026 verification, the Maryland General Assembly bill page still showed the last procedural status as a House hearing on February 3, 2026, while the Department of Legislative Services calendar identified April 13, 2026 as sine die adjournment for the regular session. No passage, chapter number, or enactment was recorded for HB 51.
What the Strategic Digital Asset Reserve Act would have created
HB 51 would have added State Finance and Procurement § 7-332 to create the Maryland Digital Asset Reserve Fund. The proposed fund would be held separately by the State Treasurer and accounted for by the Comptroller. The bill described two core purposes: retaining money seized and forfeited to the State under specified criminal procedure provisions, and serving as a reserve asset for Maryland through investment in cryptocurrency.
The proposal was narrower than a general authority to buy digital assets with any state money. Its principal source was state-seized and forfeited money tied to gambling violations under Criminal Procedure § 13-104. The fund could also receive appropriations, interest earnings, and other money accepted for the fund’s benefit, but expenditures would have been limited to those made in accordance with the State budget.
Cryptocurrency definition and investment limits
The bill defined “cryptocurrency” as a decentralized digital asset that uses a blockchain ledger, is secured by cryptographic technology, and has a market capitalization of at least $500 billion. That threshold made the proposal asset-limited by design. The Department of Legislative Services fiscal note stated that, as of January 2026, Bitcoin was the only digital asset with a market value of at least $500 billion that met the bill’s definition.
HB 51 would have provided that the fund may be used only to invest in cryptocurrency. It also stated that the State Treasurer would invest fund money in the same manner as other State money. The fiscal note observed that cryptocurrency was not then a permitted asset class under Maryland’s State investment policy and that the Treasurer would need to update investment policy and related regulations for cryptocurrency to become an authorized investment class.
Custody, administration, and fiscal treatment
For custody, the bill required cryptocurrency acquired as an investment to be held either by the State Treasurer through a secure platform created to store, manage, and safeguard institutional digital assets, or by a qualified custodian determined by the State Treasurer. Interest earnings of the fund would be credited back to the fund.
- Administrator: Maryland State Treasurer.
- Accounting role: Maryland Comptroller.
- Primary funding source: state-seized and forfeited gambling proceeds.
- Investment scope: cryptocurrency meeting the bill’s market-cap and technical definition.
Status and legal effect
HB 51 was pre-filed on October 15, 2025, introduced and read for the first time on January 14, 2026, and assigned to the House Economic Matters Committee. The bill record scheduled a February 3 hearing, canceled the original time, and then set the hearing for 1:30 p.m. Witness records show favorable, unfavorable, and informational testimony. The bill text stated an October 1, 2026 effective date if enacted, but the bill did not become an operative Maryland law during the 2026 Regular Session.
Crypto law tracking significance
For CryptoSlate tracking, HB 51 belongs primarily under government crypto holdings, enforcement and asset recovery, custody, and market-perimeter topics. It is best read as an inactive state-level reserve proposal rather than an enacted reserve authority. The bill remains useful as a reference point for comparing state digital asset reserve proposals that rely on forfeited assets, treasury administration, market-cap thresholds, and institutional custody requirements.