N※N

Ohio House Speaker skeptical of bill allowing state cryptocurrency investments

  //stocks-investing.news-articles.net/content/202 .. l-allowing-state-cryptocurrency-investments.html
  Published in Stocks and Investing on Thursday, October 16th 2025 at 0:32 GMT by Cleveland.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Ohio lawmakers are grappling with the question of whether the state should enter the volatile world of digital assets. A new bill, introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives, would allow the state to invest in a range of cryptocurrencies—bitcoin, ether, and other tokenized assets—through a publicly funded “digital asset investment fund.” The proposal, which seeks to harness the growing popularity and potential returns of blockchain technology, has met with sharp criticism from House Speaker Mike Dewey, who remains skeptical about the bill’s viability and safety.

The Core of the Proposal

At its heart, the bill would create a state-managed investment vehicle designed to diversify Ohio’s asset base. The fund would be governed by a board of directors, appointed by the governor, and would be required to follow a set of fiduciary duties and regulatory oversight consistent with the existing Ohio Investment Board. The proposed fund could invest up to 10% of the state’s discretionary funds—roughly $250 million—into a curated portfolio of vetted cryptocurrencies and digital securities. The board would employ professional asset managers to handle trading, custody, and compliance.

Supporters argue that such an initiative would position Ohio as a forward‑looking jurisdiction that embraces emerging technologies. They point to the federal and private sector interest in blockchain and highlight the potential for significant returns on investment. Proponents also emphasize that the bill includes a “risk‑mitigation” framework: the fund would be required to maintain a diversified mix, limit concentration exposure, and use cold storage solutions for asset custody. They contend that the state can learn from best practices in institutional cryptocurrency investment and that the potential upside justifies the added risk.

Speaker Dewey’s Reservations

House Speaker Mike Dewey, however, has been vocal about his concerns. In a recent floor statement, Dewey warned that “cryptocurrency is a speculative asset with no intrinsic value, and its price volatility could jeopardize public funds.” He further criticized the bill’s lack of a robust regulatory framework, noting that the state’s current oversight is geared toward traditional securities and would not adequately address the unique challenges of digital assets, such as smart‑contract vulnerabilities and the risk of fraud.

Dewey also pointed out that the bill does not address the environmental impact of mining and staking activities that underpin many cryptocurrencies. He cited studies showing that bitcoin mining alone accounts for a significant share of global electricity consumption and criticized the proposal for not requiring the fund to consider “green” or “sustainable” blockchain projects.

Broader Legislative and Economic Context

The debate over the bill reflects a broader national conversation about state involvement in cryptocurrency. Several states—including Delaware, Virginia, and New Mexico—have already issued guidelines or passed legislation permitting or restricting state investment in digital assets. Ohio’s decision could influence its reputation as an innovation hub, especially as the city of Cleveland continues to attract fintech startups and blockchain research initiatives.

Economists and finance experts have weighed in, offering nuanced views. Some advise that a well‑structured fund could generate attractive risk‑adjusted returns, especially if the state adopts a conservative, long‑term investment horizon. Others caution that without stringent oversight and a clear exit strategy, the state could face catastrophic losses. Notably, a recent analysis by the Ohio Public Pension System underscored that while crypto could offer high returns, its correlation with traditional markets is currently unclear, raising concerns about diversification benefits.

Potential Impacts on Public Services

The outcome of the bill also has tangible implications for public services. Ohio’s education and healthcare budgets could potentially benefit from any gains realized by the digital asset fund. However, Dewey highlighted that any losses could translate into cuts to public schools, road maintenance, or health programs—an outcome lawmakers would be reluctant to risk. The speaker also urged the House to consider a more cautious approach, such as allocating a smaller percentage of the discretionary budget or initiating a pilot program before full implementation.

Follow‑up and Next Steps

In response to Dewey’s concerns, the bill’s authors have pledged to engage with the Ohio Office of the State Comptroller and the Ohio Department of Financial Institutions to design an oversight structure that addresses risk management, environmental impact, and regulatory compliance. They have also suggested that the fund’s investment strategy be limited to “institutionally recognized” cryptocurrencies and that it exclude high‑risk altcoins with limited liquidity.

As the Ohio House continues its deliberations, stakeholders from academia, industry, and public advocacy groups are preparing testimony for the upcoming committee hearings. A coalition of blockchain firms in the Greater Cleveland area has already submitted a memorandum expressing support for the bill, citing potential for job creation and technology adoption. Meanwhile, a coalition of consumer advocacy groups has warned about the “digital asset boom’s lack of transparency” and called for a “wait‑and‑see” approach.

Conclusion

The debate over Ohio’s proposed digital asset investment fund underscores the tension between innovation and prudence. While the potential for high returns and economic modernization is compelling, the risks—volatility, regulatory uncertainty, environmental concerns, and possible fiscal exposure—cannot be ignored. Speaker Mike Dewey’s cautious stance serves as a reminder that any move into the cryptocurrency arena must be accompanied by comprehensive risk assessment, robust oversight, and clear safeguards for taxpayers. The Ohio House’s next actions will determine whether the state becomes a trailblazer in state-level digital asset investment or a cautionary tale for others to learn from.