Oklahoma Senate Bill 325, promoted by its sponsor as the Bitcoin Freedom Act, was a 2025-2026 state bill focused on voluntary Bitcoin payments rather than a state reserve or investment mandate. As introduced, SB 325 would have created a framework for Oklahoma state employees, vendors, private businesses, and residents to negotiate compensation or payment in Bitcoin. The bill was not enacted. As of June 12, 2026, its status is treated here as expired after the 60th Oklahoma Legislature adjourned sine die on May 14, 2026.
Oklahoma SB 325 and Bitcoin payment elections
SB 325 was introduced in the Oklahoma Senate by Sen. Dusty Deevers. The official bill title described the measure as relating to Bitcoin, authorizing employee compensation and vendor payments in Bitcoin, prescribing procedures, and setting an effective date. The introduced text stated that the bill would not establish Bitcoin as legal tender, while recognizing Bitcoin as a financial instrument and medium of exchange within existing legal frameworks.
The bill’s central payment provision would have allowed Oklahoma state employees, businesses, corporations, other entities, and state residents to negotiate and receive salaries, wages, and other forms of compensation in Bitcoin. State vendors could elect to receive Bitcoin for a specific purchase order or transaction, with that election binding for the relevant transaction.
Key provisions in the introduced Bitcoin bill
- Voluntary employee compensation: State employees electing Bitcoin compensation would have agreed with the state on whether value would be measured at the beginning of the pay period or at the time of payment.
- Vendor payments: Vendors could elect Bitcoin at the creation of a purchase order. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the payment value would be based on Bitcoin’s market value at the time of the transaction.
- Wallet and account options: Employee payments would be deposited either to a self-hosted wallet or to an employee-designated third-party account capable of safely holding Bitcoin.
- Money-transmitter carveout: A digital-asset firm that did not accept U.S. currency payments or exchange digital assets for U.S. currency would not need an Oklahoma money transmitter license under the bill.
- State implementation: The State Treasurer would have issued a request for proposal for a digital-asset firm to process state employee and vendor Bitcoin payments.
- Tax guidance: The Oklahoma Tax Commission would have issued guidance on tax implications of receiving digital assets as payment.
Implementation dates that did not become operative
The introduced text set a proposed effective date of November 1, 2025. It also would have required the State Treasurer to enter into a contract with a digital-asset firm no later than January 1, 2026, and required the Oklahoma Tax Commission to issue payment-related digital-asset tax guidance by the same date. Those dates are best understood as proposed implementation dates in an unenacted bill, not operative legal deadlines.
Status and legislative timeline
SB 325 received first reading in the Oklahoma Senate on February 3, 2025. On February 4, 2025, it was referred on second reading to the Senate Technology and Telecommunications Committee and then to the Appropriations Committee. No enacted, engrossed, or enrolled version of SB 325 appears in the final Senate journal list reviewed for the close of the 60th Legislature.
The 60th Oklahoma Legislature’s Second Regular Session ended when the Senate adjourned sine die at 4:15 p.m. on May 14, 2026. Because SB 325 did not pass before the Legislature ended, this profile classifies it as an expired bill. Editors should distinguish SB 325 from Oklahoma HB 1203, a separate Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act proposal concerning public-fund digital-asset investment authority.
Regulatory significance
SB 325 is relevant to Oklahoma’s crypto policy history because it combined Bitcoin payment authorization, state procurement, wallet custody language, and tax-guidance provisions in one bill. It did not create a government Bitcoin reserve, did not require anyone to receive Bitcoin, and did not become law.