Oklahoma House Bill 1891 was a 2025-2026 state-government bill concerning the Oklahoma State Treasurer, digital assets, stablecoins, precious metals, and a proposed Digital Asset Property Fund. As introduced, the measure would have authorized limited public-fund exposure to qualifying digital assets and created a custody and forfeiture-property framework for assets handled by state officials. The bill did not become operative law. For this profile, its status is treated as expired after the 2026 Oklahoma regular session adjourned sine die, with the bill’s last specific action recorded as referral to the House Rules Committee.
Oklahoma HB 1891 status and legislative posture
HB 1891 was introduced in the Oklahoma House during the 1st Session of the 60th Legislature and was authored by Rep. Mark Lepak. Public legislative records show first reading on Feb. 3, 2025, followed by second reading and referral to House Rules on Feb. 4, 2025. No enactment date is available because the bill was not signed or otherwise enacted.
The introduced text proposed a Nov. 1, 2025 effective date, but that date was contingent on passage. Because the bill did not advance beyond House committee referral before the 2026 session ended, the proposed effective date should not be treated as a legal commencement date.
Proposed state treasury authority for digital assets
The core investment provision would have permitted the Oklahoma State Treasurer to invest portions of the State General Revenue Fund, State Rainy Day Fund, and State Lottery Fund in precious metals, stablecoins, and digital assets with market capitalization above $500 billion averaged over the previous calendar year. The bill would have capped those investments at 10% of the relevant account at the time of investment.
HB 1891 also addressed how digital assets would be held. The introduced text listed three structures: direct holding by the State Treasurer through a secure custody solution, holding on behalf of the state by a qualified custodian, or exposure through an exchange-traded product issued by a registered investment company that invests exclusively in qualifying digital assets. Stablecoins could be held only if they had appropriate U.S. federal or state approval.
Custody, staking, lending, and retirement-fund exposure
The bill’s custody language was detailed. It defined secure custody through private-key control, encrypted access channels, multi-party governance, access controls, user-activity logs, geographically diversified data centers, disaster recovery, code audits, and penetration testing. It separately defined qualified custodians to include certain banks, trust companies, special purpose depository institutions, or regulated companies that custody digital assets for approved exchange-traded products.
The bill would have allowed staking through a third-party solution if the Office of the State Treasurer retained legal ownership of the digital asset. It also would have allowed digital-asset lending where lending did not increase the state’s financial risk, subject to Treasurer rules. Separately, state retirement funds could invest in exchange-traded products registered with the SEC, CFTC, or State Securities Office.
Digital Asset Property Fund and asset recovery
HB 1891 would have authorized the Treasurer to create a Digital Asset Property Fund within the unclaimed-property program. The fund’s stated purpose was to hold digital assets obtained through criminal asset forfeiture and return assets to Oklahoma residents who lost control of digital assets through fraud or other criminal activity. The bill expressly excluded civil asset forfeiture assets.
The proposal directed the Treasurer to create rule-based processes for receiving forfeited digital assets from state and local law enforcement, keeping assets in original form where possible, exchanging assets into qualifying digital assets or approved stablecoins where necessary, staking fund assets through a third-party service, and returning assets to eligible residents. Excess proceeds would have been paid to the State General Revenue Fund, with possible use for digital-asset-related law-enforcement activities where permissible.
Study requirement and editorial treatment
The introduced text also would have required the Oklahoma State Treasurer to study how precious metals and digital assets could affect the state’s economic security and how stablecoins might support lower-cost, faster-settling state payments. It directed the Treasurer to post study results before the next legislative session.
For CryptoSlate taxonomy purposes, HB 1891 is best classified as an expired Oklahoma bill covering government crypto holdings, custody, stablecoins, staking, and asset recovery. Review again only if a substantially similar Oklahoma bill is filed later.