Understanding the BTC reserves and sovereign wealth funds of the United States in one article

Compiled by Deng Tong, Golden Finance

On February 4th, the newly appointed crypto czar David Sacks stated at a press conference that the bicameral cryptocurrency working group is studying strategic Bitcoin reserves (SBR), and emphasized that the concept of sovereign wealth fund is somewhat different.

In fact, sovereign wealth funds (SWF) have been widely understood in the cryptocurrency community, often mistakenly seen as a vehicle that can naturally include bitcoin or other digital assets. SWFs are government-owned investment funds that manage national savings, typically built up from surplus revenues such as oil profits or trade income.

Their main goal is long-term growth and wealth preservation, ensuring economic stability for future generations. Unlike central banks, which focus on managing currency and monetary policy, sovereign wealth funds take a more strategic approach, investing in real estate, stocks, infrastructure, and local businesses.

Essentially, they prioritize stable growth over high-risk investments, making it an important tool for countries seeking to ensure financial security beyond immediate needs.

The definition of a sovereign wealth fund, Sacks quickly pointed out, should not be confused with the reason for SBR. The scope of sovereign wealth funds may be used for broader purposes than specific reserves, including supporting domestic companies and market infrastructure.

23 states have enacted Bitcoin and digital asset legislation. Source: Bitcoin Laws

Bill Hughes, senior legal counsel at Consensys, a blockchain software company, pointed out that the concept of sovereign wealth fund was ordered to be created by US President Donald Trump on February 3, and can serve as a 'second choice' if a strategic reserve limited to cryptocurrencies fails.

With these measures gaining momentum, they raise an important question about the role of cryptocurrencies in national investment strategies and what this means for the broader digital asset industry in 2025 and beyond.

The United States has established state-level sovereign wealth funds and a Bitcoin reserve plan

A few states already have sovereign wealth funds that meet the traditional definition of the United States. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 to diversify its investment portfolio with oil revenues, supporting the state budget and providing annual dividends to residents.

The Texas Permanent School Fund utilizes oil and gas revenues to fund public education while ensuring financial stability. Similarly, the Wyoming Permanent Mineral Trust Fund and the North Dakota Legacy Fund invest in oil, gas, and mineral extraction earnings to smooth budget fluctuations and preserve wealth for future generations.

New Mexico's Permanent Fund for Resources Tax adopts a similar model, reinvesting the revenue from resource taxation to support the financial health of the state. Although these funds have different purposes, they share a common goal: transforming temporary resource prosperity into lasting financial security.

If the analyst includes state-managed funds that set aside surplus funds (such as emergency funds or stability funds), this number will increase. Some of these funds will be invested, sometimes in diversified investment portfolios.

As a result, as many as 23 states have some form of such investment vehicles. However, their authorization and structure may differ from the 'classic' sovereign wealth fund model.

15 states have separate Bitcoin and digital asset custody laws. Source: Bitcoin Laws

On the positive side, 15 states have at least introduced Bitcoin and digital asset legislation. Arizona and Utah are currently tied for the lead in legislative voting levels in these states.

A proposed bill in Arizona suggests the establishment of a strategic Bitcoin reserve fund with a cap of 10% of public funds, but only if the US government establishes its own SBR. It is consistent with Senator Lummis' Bitcoin bill, which aims to allow states to participate in federally managed plans.

The Utah bill will allow up to 10% of several major state funds to be invested in digital assets, protecting self-custody rights and ensuring that nodes are not classified as money transmitters. The Utah bill has a broad definition of 'digital assets' and does not directly mention Bitcoin, taking a comprehensive approach to integrating cryptocurrency into the state's investment strategy.

The bills (HB1184) in North Dakota and (HB201) in Wyoming did not pass their respective state procedures.

This is a matter of time, not a question of whether it will happen.

The rapid emergence of Bitcoin and digital asset reserve legislation at the state level marks a fundamental shift in government views on cryptocurrencies as speculative assets and potential strategic reserves.

Whether these efforts will translate into actual Bitcoin holdings or remain symbolic gestures will depend on political will, regulatory transparency, and market conditions. However, what can be certain is that these attempts have already gone beyond theory.

As states experiment with digital asset reserves and the federal government develops its own sovereign wealth strategy, the role of Bitcoin in public finance is no longer a question of 'whether', but of 'when' and 'how'.