Connecticut lawmakers unanimously pass a bill that prohibits state and local government divisions from receiving cryptocurrency payments and holding crypto assets.
House Bill 7082, titled “a law regarding various changes to money delivery laws, state payment and virtual currency investment (…),” received bipartisan support and became signed In law on Tuesday.
The bill document sets that “the state or any political subdivision of the state” will not accept cryptocurrency payments or purchase of crypto assets.
The law also prohibits the state of Connecticut from establishing a crypto asset reserve, making it one of several US states that clearly denies the idea of crypto asset reserves.
Democrats pushed the bill
The connecticut’s joint committee first presented on February 2025, the bill was cocospled by Democrats, along with state representative Ken Gucker, Senator Patricia Miller and Senator Matthew Lesser.
Since the first vote in May, the bill received extensive support from the Chamber, with 105 votes supporting the bill and 42 lawmakers who voted against it on a vote on May 14.
The latest passage came from 148 votes in favor of the bill and zero opponents, with three prevention.
Some online commentators mentioned Significant most democratic party in Connecticut as a major united vote driver, especially among the wider party Critism of President Donald Trump’s involvement with memecoins and digital assets.
Related: Crypto Asset Reserve Bill Lands in Parliament of Ukraine
A related proposal, the Modern Emoluments and Malfeasance Enforcement Act, or the Meme Actaimed to prevent federal officials from using their positions to Income from memecoins.
The prohibition is “nothing to do with substance”
According to In some online observers in the industry, Connecticut ban on state crypto investment is likely to be driven by concerns over volatility and regulation, but it can be a hindrance to change.
On the other hand, Brogan Law founder Aaron Brogan told Cointelegraph that the ban was “nothing made of substance,” and instead reflected that “some subsets of democratic are polarized against the cryptocurrency industry,” probably because of his interaction with Trump.
“It is a sign that Connecticut is a symbolic opposition to cryptocurrency, and in all states that have established Bitcoin reserves,” Brogan said, and added:
“State legislatures like to ban things that don’t happen because it gets headaches without a bad problem of real consequences in the real world.”
Brogan also featured that the Governor of Connecticut still needs to sign the law and have been taught on further disclosure requirements that target money senders to the private sector.
“That can be expensive, and bifurcate professional practice in the way California privacy laws have for some online applications,” he said.
Growing list of states that reject Bitcoin reserves
Under the Trump administration, the number of US states considering -Bitcoin (Btc) increased reserve measures, including the number of strategic bitcoin reserve (SBR) bills of up to 31, According to in data from the laws of bitcoin.
Connecticut, however, does not unite in denial of such initiatives, with lawmakers in five states – MontanaWyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Pennsylvania – SBR’s murder of bills in February Mag -one
In March, the Utah Senate passed a Bitcoin Bill but amended it to remove a section That could be authorized the state manager to invest in Bitcoin. Followed the state of Oklahoma in April as a revenue committee and taxation in the Senate declined An SBR proposal to a 6 vote.
The list of states that reject fees related to the Bitcoin reserve continues to grow in May, including Florida is endless to postpone its SBR bill in early May and The Governor of Arizona is taking two crypto bills.
Magazine: Dangers to us are ‘front run’ in Bitcoin Reserve by other countries: Samson Mow
