Arizona Leads Bitcoin Reserve Race As Two Bills Pass House Commerce Committee Vote

bitcoinist2025-03-20 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-03-20 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Arizona has taken the lead in the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR) race after two bills passed the House of...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Arizona has taken the lead in the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR) race after two bills passed the House of Representatives Commerce Committee vote on March 18. The state now has two active crypto reserve legislations and a legal tender bill, which have also advanced to the next stage.

House Commerce Committee Passes Bitcoin Reserve Bills

On Tuesday, the Arizona House Commerce Committee met to consider three Bitcoin-related legislations, including two strategic reserve bills, which passed the vote to advance to the next legislative stage.

Senate Bill 1025 (SB1025), also known as the “Arizona Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act,” passed the vote with a 6 – 4 majority. Bitcoin Laws noted that the vote “was along partisan lines: Republicans for; Democrats against.”

bitcoin

 

 

SB1025 passes with a 6 - 4 majority. Source: Bitcoin Laws

If passed, the legislation, sponsored by Republican Senator Wendy Rogers, would allow public funds in Arizona, such as the state treasurer or state retirement system, to invest up to 10% of their assets under management in cryptocurrencies, focusing on Bitcoin (BTC).

“If the United States Secretary of the Treasury establishes a strategic Bitcoin reserve for the storage of government Bitcoin holdings, a public fund may store the virtual currency holdings of the public fund in a secure segregated account within the strategic Bitcoin reserve,” SB1025 reads.

The bill also provides a framework for public funds to diversify their investments and establishes clear guidelines and definitions to manage them.

Meanwhile, Senate Bill 1373 (SB1373), sponsored by Republican Senator Mark Finchem, passed with a 6 – 4 vote on Tuesday. The legislation aims to establish a Digital Assets Strategic Reserve Fund in the state, comprised of seized cryptocurrencies and appropriated legislative funds that can be held through secure custody solutions or exchange-traded products (ETPs).

The fund would be managed by the state treasurer, who could invest up to 10% of its total deposit in any fiscal year and may loan its assets to generate additional returns if it doesn’t increase the state’s financial risks.

“The bill also outlines strict requirements for secure custody solutions, including exclusive key access, encrypted environments, hardware maintenance in multiple secure data centers, multi-party governance, comprehensive logging, regular security audits, and disaster recovery protocols,” Bitcoin Laws explains.

Arizona Takes The SBR Lead

After Utah scrapped its BTC reserve clause, Arizona became the state with the most advanced SBR legislation. As reported by Bitcoinist, the Utah State Senate exited the SBR race this month after amending the proposed bill allowing the state treasury to invest in digital assets.

bitcoin

Arizona has advanced two SBR bills. Source: Bitcoin Laws

Following this development, Arizona took the lead with two reserve bills awaiting a final floor vote in the Senate before moving to the House Commerce Committee. Both strategic reserve bills now move to the House Rules Committee, which has a 5 – 3 Republican majority.

If they pass the Rules Committee vote, SB1015 and SB1373 will only require a vote by the full House before heading to the governor’s desk. Similarly, another BTC-related bill passed the House Commerce Committee on Tuesday with a 6-4 vote and heads to the next stage.

Senate Bill 1062 (SB1062), also sponsored by Senator Mark Finchem, aims to expand the state’s definition of legal tender to include cryptocurrencies, including BTC, alongside traditional currencies.

The legislation also updates different sections of Arizona’s tax code to include the new legal tender definition and ensure consistency across different statutes, suggesting an effort to recognize the industry as a key sector.

Bitcoin

BTC trades at $84,289 in the one-week chart. Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView
Featured Image from Unsplash.com, Chart from TradingView.com
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Rubmar is a crypto enthusiast who likes learning and improving constantly. She enjoys reporting on the latest news and developments in the crypto industry. Rubmar also enjoys scrapbooking, crafting, simulation games, and watching football.

İlgili Okumalar

The Evolution Path of Physical Bitcoin

The Evolution of Physical Bitcoin Bitcoin's digital nature is its core strength, enabling self-custody and rapid global transfers. However, its intangibility also hinders mainstream adoption. For over a decade, creators have attempted to materialize Bitcoin while preserving its cash-like properties, yielding notable results. Casascius Coins, launched in 2011, were the first and most iconic physical Bitcoin. Creator Mike Caldwell generated private keys offline, printed them on coins, and sealed them with tamper-evident holograms. This model relied on user trust in the centralized issuer. Production ceased in 2013 due to regulatory pressure from FinCEN. RavenBit Coins emerged in 2014 aiming to decentralize minting by letting users generate and apply their own keys. However, this led to trust issues with numerous untrusted minters and insecure key generation methods. In 2016, Coinkite introduced Opendimes—a breakthrough in bearer asset technology. These USB-shaped devices generate and store keys internally. Funds can be received by checking the public key, but spending requires physically breaking the device to extract the private key. While innovative and open-source, its cost (~$20) and form factor limit its use for small, everyday transactions. Satochip's Satodime, a card-shaped device using similar secure chip technology, followed. It supports NFC interaction and comes in various forms. While potentially cheaper in bulk (~13€), it remains a high-security hardware wallet, not a low-cost cash substitute. A fundamental cost barrier exists. For physical Bitcoin to achieve widespread commercial use, hardware costs must drop below $1 to match the production cost of fiat banknotes. Current secure chips capable of running Bitcoin's cryptographic algorithms (like secp256k1) are too expensive. Chips like NXP's NTAG X DNA (~$3) show cost-reduction potential but lack native Bitcoin curve support. Projects like OfflineCash embed chips in banknote-like paper, but face challenges with durability, the need for custom Bitcoin-enabled chips, and the inherent requirement for users to verify balances online—which conflicts with Bitcoin's trustless ideal. Coinkite's Tapsigner, a ~$20 card with a proprietary Bitcoin NFC chip, is seen as a more practical step forward. It functions as a reloadable hardware wallet for contactless payments, solving the "change" problem and focusing on real-world retail integration, a direction also pursued by companies like Cash App and Square. In summary, the journey to physical Bitcoin has progressed from trusted centralized mints (Casascius) to user-generated keys (RavenBit) and finally to self-contained secure hardware (Opendimes, Satodime, Tapsigner). The core challenge remains developing a sufficiently low-cost, durable, and truly trustless physical bearer asset that can function like cash in daily transactions. Current solutions are either too expensive or introduce new trust assumptions, keeping the ideal of ubiquitous physical Bitcoin just out of reach for now.

marsbit48 dk önce

The Evolution Path of Physical Bitcoin

marsbit48 dk önce

Samsung Relies on Technology Cycles, SK Hynix on HBM, How Did Micron Win a Trillion-Dollar Market Cap?

Micron Technology, the third-largest memory chip maker alongside Samsung and SK Hynix, recently saw its market cap surpass $1 trillion. Founded in 1978 in Boise, Idaho, Micron survived brutal industry cycles while American peers and Japan's memory sector faltered. Its survival is attributed to a dual strategy: leveraging political and legal avenues for critical breathing room, coupled with relentless manufacturing cost control. Historically, Micron sought U.S. government intervention three times. In 1985, it filed an anti-dumping complaint against Japanese firms, leading to the U.S.-Japan Semiconductor Agreement. Ironically, this created an opening for Samsung, which later became its toughest competitor. In 2002, Micron turned "whistleblower" in a DRAM price-fixing investigation, escaping penalties while rivals were fined. In 2017, it sued China's Fujian Jinhua, contributing to its placement on a U.S. entity list, stifling a nascent competitor. However, a major strategic misstep occurred in 2013 with the acquisition of bankrupt Japanese firm Elpida. Integrating Elpida's mobile-DRAM-focused technology diverted resources, causing Micron to miss the critical early decade of development for High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)—the high-performance memory essential for AI chips like NVIDIA GPUs. By the time AI demand exploded in 2022, SK Hynix, which launched the first HBM in 2013, held about 85% of the HBM3 market, leaving Micron with roughly 3%. Micron now faces a triple squeeze. In the high-end HBM market, it lags significantly behind SK Hynix and Samsung. In the mid-to-low end DRAM market, it faces aggressive price competition from China's CXMT. Furthermore, a 2023 Chinese cybersecurity ban on its products slashed its revenue from China, a once-core market, from over 10% to just 7.1% by FY2025, causing it to exit China's data center server business. Beneath its political maneuvering lies Micron's core strength: exceptional manufacturing efficiency and cost control. Decades of engineering have yielded DRAM chips with a smaller cell area than rivals, meaning more chips per wafer and lower unit costs. This efficiency, not subsidies, has allowed it to withstand price wars. While political leverage bought time, Micron is now paying a "time debt" in the HBM race. It is racing to ramp up HBM3E production and develop HBM4, but catching up to competitors who started a decade earlier is a monumental challenge. Its future hinges on whether its expertise in cost control and political strategy can compensate for the lost time in a technology race where early-mover advantage is decisive.

链捕手1 saat önce

Samsung Relies on Technology Cycles, SK Hynix on HBM, How Did Micron Win a Trillion-Dollar Market Cap?

链捕手1 saat önce

New AMD Paper Overturns Conventional Wisdom: FP4 Training Instability's Cause Is Not Insufficient Randomness

AMD's new research challenges the conventional understanding of FP4 training instability. While reducing precision from FP8 to FP4 promises doubled computational throughput and is supported by new hardware like NVIDIA Blackwell and AMD MI350 series, training large language models natively with FP4 has been notoriously unstable, often attributed to insufficient stochasticity. The paper "Pretraining large language models with MXFP4 on Native FP4 Hardware" demonstrates successful end-to-end FP4 pre-training of Llama 3.1-8B on AMD MI355X GPUs using the MXFP4 format, achieving a 9-10% overall speedup over FP8. Crucially, it identifies the root cause of instability: not randomness, but the accumulation of *structural micro-scaling errors* along the sensitive weight gradient (Wgrad) path. Through controlled experiments, researchers found that quantizing the Wgrad operation to FP4 caused significant convergence degradation. Counterintuitively, common stochasticity-based mitigation techniques like stochastic rounding and randomized Hadamard transforms worsened performance. In contrast, applying a *deterministic* Hadamard transform successfully stabilized training by ensuring consistent error patterns, reducing the extra token cost from 26-27% to just 8-9%. This work has significant implications: 1) It provides a clear diagnostic for low-precision training instability, steering focus towards structural errors. 2) It pushes FP4 from a primarily inference-focused format into the realm of viable training. 3) It leverages the open OCP Microscaling (MX) standard, promoting cross-vendor compatibility. The research marks a critical step towards more economical large model training by further pushing the boundaries of low-precision computation.

marsbit1 saat önce

New AMD Paper Overturns Conventional Wisdom: FP4 Training Instability's Cause Is Not Insufficient Randomness

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片