On a Wednesday, July 10, the New Hampshire Executive Council hit the brakes during a meeting initially seen as a "milestone in financial innovation"—the municipal bond proposal, designed by the state's Commercial Finance Authority, backed by Bitcoin as a supporting asset, approximately $100 million in scale and endorsed by the state government, was officially halted with a 3-2 vote against it. If passed, it would have become one of the world's first Bitcoin-backed bonds endorsed by state or municipal authorities, embedding crypto assets directly into the balance sheet of state-level debt instruments, and thus was viewed by many supporters as a landmark attempt at "regulatory innovation." However, the Executive Council ultimately chose "prudent rejection," publicly drawing a boundary between the willingness to experiment with new assets and the concern over amplifying financial and political risks. For the broader state and municipal bond market, this vote from New Hampshire not only ended a pioneering project but also released a clear signal: even in states eager to explore crypto reserves early on, incorporating crypto assets into public debt contracts remains a high-risk path that requires repeated discussions, rejections, or even slowed progress.

$100 Million Bitcoin Bond Design and Supporting Institutions

This approximately $100 million product, superficially a common municipal bond, has a framework completely different from traditional state bonds. Designed to be structured and issued by the New Hampshire Commercial Finance Authority, the bond itself is endorsed by the state or municipal authorities, offering a credit commitment from the public sector, but the "hard asset" supporting this commitment has been substituted with Bitcoin—locked under the bond structure as a supporting or collateral asset, providing an additional layer of asset protection for investors. In other words, what investors receive is a bond stamped with the state’s name but must concurrently understand the impact of on-chain price fluctuations on the collateral's value, a rare hybrid structure in the municipal bond market.

Months before the vote, rating agency Moody's had already assessed this Bitcoin-backed bond, assigning it a Ba2 rating that clearly delineates the risk boundaries: within Moody's system, Ba2 is classified as a medium-low credit rating, below investment-grade state bonds, indicating that its probability of default and volatility cannot compare to common high-rated state bonds. For conservative state bond buyers, this is not a product that can be viewed as "ordinary state bonds," but rather resembles a high-risk note with experimental characteristics. Behind the project, CleanSpark is seen as one of the operational or technical support entities, forming a triangular relationship with the state government and the Commercial Finance Authority: state and municipal authorities provide political and financial endorsement, the Commercial Finance Authority packages it into a bond tool acceptable to capital markets, while CleanSpark is closer to the Bitcoin asset side, offering necessary support for this structure. It is this layered institutional chain that makes the bond appear feasible on paper, while also making regulators particularly cautious when weighing "who is responsible for which risks."

3-2 No Votes: What is the Executive Council Afraid Of?

On the day of the vote, the New Hampshire Executive Council pressed the red button with a 3-2 decision, effectively blocking a path previously described as "innovative financing." The opposing votes were evidently not debating technical routes but weighing a more traditional matter: can state credit be tied to an asset class with a historically volatile price? Even with Moody's previous Ba2 rating providing a preliminary credit signal for the market, most members still faced the same political and financial logic—if prices fall deeply, will the pressure to fulfill debt ultimately be passed on to taxpayers? Under extreme conditions, will the endorsement from state/municipal authorities transform into a “bottom-line commitment” concerning asset price risks? From this perspective, this seemingly insulated bond is interpreted as an amplifier of price volatility, rather than just an additional layer of collateral.

With the rejection, the approximately $100 million Bitcoin-backed bond plan was officially halted, and the state government will find it difficult to restart similar financing attempts with the same structure in the short term; the pathway of "using Bitcoin as collateral" in state public debt has been put on pause. In contrast to the cautiousness of the Executive Council, state House Majority Leader Keith Ammon, as one of the main supporters, publicly called the decision "extremely shortsighted" and emphasized that he "would not give up," clearly illuminating the policy rift between the legislative and executive branches: one side believes there is strategic value in trialing public debt prior to uniform federal regulations, while the other fears exposing taxpayers to unpredictable price curves under a framework of partly inconsistent federal and state regulations. This divide itself has become a political prerequisite that New Hampshire will face in every future crypto-related financing attempt.

Local Brakes, Yet Washington is Loosening Up for Developers

At the same time that New Hampshire pressed the brakes on Bitcoin from the public financing side, on the other end in Washington, Senator Ron Wyden was doing something that seemed to be in the opposite direction: he was pushing to retain Section 604 in the "Digital Asset Market Clarity Act" (CLARITY Act), pressuring decision-makers through letters and other means, to ensure that developers are not inadvertently "taken out" while redefining regulatory boundaries. The core of Section 604 is to provide a firewall for non-custodial blockchain developers—when they simply create or publish user-controlled software, they should not be held accountable for users' subsequent on-chain behaviors. This "no-blame for coders" design has been clearly framed by Wyden as a necessary provision to maintain an innovative environment and avoid harming the developer ecosystem.

Thus, a conflicting picture emerged between federal and state levels: in Washington, lawmakers attempt through the CLARITY Act to liberate "those who write code" from responsibility under pressure; meanwhile, in New Hampshire, the Executive Council voted 3 to 2 against a municipal bond backed by Bitcoin as a supporting asset, approximately $100 million, which was initially expected to become one of the world's first such products, due to concerns that aligning taxpayers directly under unpredictable price risks would be detrimental within the context of partly inconsistent federal and state rules. Loosening constraints for developers while tightening constraints on public finances is not coincidental, but a reflection of the long-standing fragmented pattern of crypto regulation in the United States: the federal level is attempting to clarify who should be responsible for code and infrastructure, while state governments determine how much money and credit they are willing to allocate to this asset pathway, forcing project teams and users to find their safe boundaries within this misaligned institutional puzzle.

From Crypto Reserve Pioneer to Failed Public Offering Experiment

Before this rejection, New Hampshire was not "conservative"; quite the opposite. As early as when federal discussions on uniform regulations were ongoing, the state had established a certain scale of crypto reserves the previous year, directly integrating this new asset into its state balance sheet, becoming what the industry considered a "crab-eating" state government laboratory. The approximately $100 million Bitcoin-backed municipal bond designed by the state Commercial Finance Authority logically only pushed this path forward one step: on the existing reserve foundation, upgrading Bitcoin from "passive holding" to "actively used as collateral," and introducing crypto assets into public financing tools through state/municipal endorsement. If the project had landed smoothly, it would have become one of the world's first Bitcoin-backed bonds endorsed by state or municipal authorities, providing other local governments with a replicable structural template.

But in the 3-2 voting result, this path was abruptly halted. Moody's earlier Ba2 rating had already released a cautious attitude towards such structural risks, and the Executive Council's rejection exposed a deeper political and governance divide: the same state that once dared to hold crypto reserves now clearly identified a "red line" on the question of whether public debt should be deeply tied to Bitcoin. For other states and municipal authorities, this turning point in New Hampshire will be seen as a real-world sample: on one hand, it proves that local governments do have the space to design Bitcoin-backed bonds under the existing federal-state parallel regulatory framework; on the other hand, the rejection and the Ba2 rating combined effectively communicate to potential issuers and institutional investors that even the "pioneer state," when embedding such assets into the public debt market, could be put on pause during the last round of political review; this uncertainty itself will create a significant demonstration and chilling effect on subsequent similar proposals.

A Stalemate by One Vote: Will There Be a Next Time for Bitcoin State Bonds?

The 3-2 rejection kept the $100 million Bitcoin-backed bond from proceeding to issuance, leaving the entire narrative at an extremely unstable equilibrium—should a single council member change their stance in the future, the rejection could potentially be overturned at the same table. House Majority Leader Keith Ammon’s post-vote declaration that "we will not give up" sends a signal to the market: the real contest will likely shift to the fine details of structural design, risk isolation clauses, and intra-state political lobbying. In terms of path choices, the storyline could unfold in multiple directions: perhaps other states will first test the waters, reconstructing credit and collateral arrangements based on New Hampshire's failed sample; maybe they will wait for the resolution of federal negotiations regarding key provisions related to the CLARITY Act and Section 604, before returning to adjust product forms; or it could involve introducing stronger risk buffering mechanisms, making more "traditional debt market-like" compromises on ratings, guarantee levels, and asset isolation. For project teams, underwriting institutions, and potential investors, what truly needs close attention are three continuously changing curves: how rating agencies price the credit risks of such tools, how federal legislation like the CLARITY Act reshapes regulatory boundaries, and whether the state-level political landscape is willing to bear additional trial-and-error costs for this new type of bond.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。