Massachusetts Senate Bill 1967, titled An Act relative to a bitcoin strategic reserve, is a 2025-2026 state bill that proposed a Commonwealth Bitcoin Strategic Reserve for Massachusetts. As of June 10, 2026, the measure had not been enacted and had no effective date. Its last recorded action was November 26, 2025, when the Senate bill was accompanied by study order S.2757 after Joint Committee on Revenue consideration. This profile maps the measure to In committee because the available status vocabulary does not include a separate study-order category.
What the Massachusetts Bitcoin Strategic Reserve bill would create
S.1967 would amend chapter 29 of the Massachusetts General Laws by adding a new section 72. The proposal would establish the Commonwealth Bitcoin Strategic Reserve and place administration with the treasurer of the Commonwealth. The bill is best understood as a public-finance and treasury-management proposal, not a retail crypto market bill. It does not create a licensing regime for exchanges, authorize private businesses to accept cryptocurrency, or change consumer crypto rules.
- Reserve structure: a state-administered reserve for bitcoin and other digital assets.
- Administrator: the Massachusetts state treasurer.
- Primary topic: government crypto holdings and custody of public digital assets.
Investment authority and funding limits
The bill would authorize the state treasurer to invest in bitcoin or digital assets using money that is unexpended, unencumbered, or uncommitted and deposited in accounts identified by the measure. The bill text and legislative summaries indicate that the Commonwealth Stabilization Fund is central to the proposal, with investment authority subject to a 10% cap. The bill would not itself confirm an executed purchase, a current state bitcoin balance, or an enacted appropriation.
For editorial purposes, the important distinction is that S.1967 would create conditional authority. It would not require every covered fund to buy bitcoin, and it would not make bitcoin legal tender in Massachusetts. The proposal would instead set a statutory channel through which the treasurer could hold qualifying digital assets if the bill later became law.
Custody, seized assets, and administration
S.1967 also addresses custody and state-held digital assets. The indexed bill text states that the treasurer may deposit bitcoin or other digital assets seized by the Commonwealth into the reserve. It also defines a secure custody solution and points to custody through state control or qualified custodial arrangements. Those provisions make operational control, safekeeping, and asset segregation central issues for any future implementation.
Because the measure concerns public assets, its practical significance would depend on subsequent appropriations, treasury policies, custody selection, accounting treatment, and any public reporting rules adopted through later legislation or administrative practice. Editors should avoid presenting the bill as enacted, funded, or implemented unless a later official record confirms that change. This profile does not provide legal, investment, tax, or compliance advice.
Status and timeline for S.1967
The bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Revenue on February 27, 2025, and the House concurred the same day. A Revenue Committee hearing was scheduled for October 7, 2025. On November 26, 2025, the bill was accompanied by study order S.2757. LegiScan lists S.2757 as the measure that replaced S.1967 and reports that the study order was discharged to the Senate Rules Committee on December 4, 2025.
Jurisdictional impact
If enacted in a future form, the measure would apply to Massachusetts state treasury operations. It would not directly regulate private crypto custody providers, exchanges, miners, stablecoin issuers, or individual bitcoin holders except to the extent they interact with a state reserve or a state-selected custody process. Editors should re-check S.1967, S.2757, and any successor bill before publication because Massachusetts legislative records can change during the 194th General Court.