The State of Crypto & Blockchain Law in 2025 (presentation to the Montana Blockchain & Digital Innovation Task Force). Note: a meeting presentation hosted on the state site; the presenter is not named in the extracted text.

Document text

Research, not advice. Part of the Bitcoin research archive (October 2026). Claims labelled unverified, contested or fringe are reported, not endorsed; statuses of bills and rules are as of the date checked. Government, court and patent records are public domain; the research notes are CC BY 4.0.

The State of Crypto &
       Blockchain Law in 2025
       What’s Happening, What’s Working, and and What Montana Can Do

Montana Blockchain & Digital Innovation Task Force                     December 15, 2025
What Montana Has Already Done

●   SB 178 (2023) - protects digital asset mining from discriminatory utility rates,
    restricts local zoning discrimination against mining, bars extra taxation solely for
    paying with digital assets, and treats digital assets as personal property.
●   SB 426 (signed Apr 17, 2025) - modernizes MT’s UCC to cover digital assets (this is
    where UCC Article 12-style clarity lands for commercial law).
●   SB 265 (Financial Freedom and Innovation Act; effective Oct 1, 2025) - bans
    state/local acceptance/testing of CBDC; protects self-custody; confirms rights to
    run nodes / develop / transfer / stake; creates a certification pathway & securities
    exemption for “network token” issuers.
●   SB 330 (2025) - creates this Task Force; explicitly charges it with
    knowledge-building and recommendations on adoption, incentives, partnerships w/
    financial institutions, and regulation.
What We’ll Cover Here

●   How states regulate and embrace crypto today (5 categories)
●   What worked and what hasn’t
●   Federal & international context
●   Practical lessons and policy directions for Montana
The 5 Buckets of State Crypto Law

●   Legal recognition & definitions
●   Licensing & business regulation
●   Commercial law & custody
●   Taxation & economic incentives
●   Government adoption & task forces
Legal Recognition & Definitions

●   Smart contracts recognized as valid contracts
●   Blockchain records treated as legal records
●   Digital assets defined as property
●   DAO recognition (in some states)
Why Legal Recognition Matters

●   Lower legal uncertainty
●   Easier dispute resolution
●   Enables banking, lending, and insurance
●   Low political risk / high payoff
Licensing & Business Regulation

●   Heavy bespoke licensing (e.g., NY BitLicense)
●   Crypto under money transmitter laws
●   Exemptions or tailored regimes
●   Regulatory sandboxes
●   Special bank / trust charters
Two Competing Models

Restrictive Model
 ●   High cost to enter
 ●   Few licensed firms
 ●   Businesses avoid state

Clarity Model
 ●   Clear rules
 ●   Moderate compliance
 ●   More firms operate in-state
Commercial Law, Custody & Investor Protection

●   UCC updates for digital assets
●   Rules for crypto as collateral
●   Custody authority for banks/trusts
●   State-level token/securities treatment
●   Anti-fraud enforcement
Taxation & Economic Incentives

●   Tax treatment clarity (income, sales, property)
●   Mining & data center incentives
●   Energy pricing & exemptions
●   Limited acceptance of crypto for payments
●   Treasury exploration (pilot authority)
Case Study: Washington & Hawaii

What They Did
●   Double-reserve requirements
●   Major exchanges exited
●   States later reversed course
Lesson
●   Extreme safeguards can eliminate legal markets
International Example: Switzerland & Singapore

●   Early legal recognition
●   Tailored financial regulation
●   Strong compliance, clear rules
●   Dense crypto ecosystems formed
Where to focus

●   Exchange/custody regulatory clarity

     ○   If an exchange wants to locate in MT: what license applies? Money transmitter?
         something else? How predictable is approval?

●   Banking integration

     ○   Many “crypto states” succeed by getting local banks comfortable with compliant
         crypto businesses.

●   Consumer protection playbook

     ○   How will the state enforce against scams while not punishing legitimate activity?

●   Government procurement/pilots

     ○   SB330 talks about adoption/partnerships; what pilots are worth doing?
Policy Direction: Finish the Legal Plumbing

●   The goal is not more bills for the sake of bills.
●   “Usability” looks like:
     ○   Clear public guidance from the State Auditor/CSI on SB265
         certification expectations and timelines (avoid a de facto
         “BitLicense-by-process”).
     ○   Education materials for businesses: what qualifies as a network
         token; what doesn’t; what evidence is persuasive.
     ○   On mining: tech-neutral standards for noise, safety,
         interconnection
Policy Direction: Smart Business Regulation

●   Avoid bespoke heavy licenses
●   Consider sandbox or light registration
●   Coordinate with federal standards
●   Clear enforcement posture: punish fraud; don’t criminalize protocol
    participation.
Policy Direction: Banking & Custody Innovation

●   Digital asset trust or charter pathways
●   Explicit custody authority
●   Partnerships with existing banks
●   High standards, clear rules
Policy Direction: Government Pilots & Education

●   Limited blockchain pilots
●   Public education initiatives
●   University partnerships
●   Possible Areas
    ○   Notarization
    ○   Supply Chain Provenance
    ○   Credentialing
Policy Direction: Financial Inclusion

●   Convene MT banks/credit unions + CSI + AG to define “acceptable risk
    baselines”
●   Develop standardized due diligence checklists for crypto businesses
    operating in MT
●   Encourage pilot programs for:
    ○   compliant custody services
    ○   secured lending against digital assets (made possible by SB426)
Final Takeaways

●   Crypto law is about clarity, not hype
●   States that lead attract capital and talent
●   Mistakes are well-documented
●   Montana can be early, careful, and competitive