New Hampshire State House in Concord under a clear blue sky

New Hampshire Stopped a $100 Million Bitcoin Bond by One Vote

By Isaac • July 11, 2026 2:07 pm • Comments

New Hampshire came within one vote of putting a Bitcoin-backed bond through a state financing authority.

The Executive Council rejected the proposed $100 million deal by a 3-2 vote on Wednesday, stopping it at the final state approval stage after months of structuring, legal work, and a provisional credit rating from Moody’s.

The result is significant. So is what the bond was not.

Trending: America’s CBDC Ban Is Set to Take Effect Without President Trump’s Signature

This was not a plan to make taxpayers repay a state Bitcoin purchase. New Hampshire would not have pledged its credit, and the state treasury would not have been responsible if the borrower or the collateral failed.

The proposal used New Hampshire’s public financing machinery as a conduit for a private borrower. That distinction has been blurred in some descriptions of the deal as a “municipal Bitcoin bond,” but it was central to both the structure and the political fight.

The New Hampshire Secretary of State identified the borrower as NH CleanSpark Borrower Trust 2026-1 in the July 8 Executive Council agenda. The item listed a public hearing on no more than $100 million of taxable revenue bonds.

The proceeds were intended to finance the acquisition of Bitcoin by the trust’s parent, NH CleanSpark Guarantor 1 LLC, and to cover issuance costs. The New Hampshire Business Finance Authority would have issued the bonds on the private entity’s behalf.

The hearing appeared under RSA 162-I, the state law governing industrial development bonds. The agenda named the CleanSpark trust as the borrower, not New Hampshire or a state agency.

The $100 million figure was a maximum authorization for a proposed issue. It did not represent money transferred or guaranteed by the state.

The Block reports that the borrower planned to secure the debt with roughly $160 million in Bitcoin held in segregated wallets at BitGo. The structure therefore started with about $1.60 in Bitcoin collateral for every $1 borrowed.

If the collateral value fell below roughly $140 million, the deal included redemption or liquidation protections designed to keep the bondholders from riding an uncontrolled decline. Investors’ recourse would have been limited to that collateral and the transaction’s proceeds.

No state taxpayer backstop sat behind it, and bondholders could not turn to New Hampshire’s general funds if the collateral proved insufficient.

That did not make the bond risk-free. Bitcoin can fall faster than a liquidation process can execute, and a private borrower can default.

Custody systems can fail and legal rights can be disputed. Those risks belonged to the investors who chose to buy the bond rather than to New Hampshire residents.

The collateral cushions were the deal’s answer to Bitcoin’s volatility. They reduced expected loss exposure, but they could not eliminate gap risk during a rapid selloff.

State Representative Keith Ammon, a Republican who supported the proposal, argued after the vote that the council had damaged New Hampshire’s reputation as a place to issue conduit bonds. He also signaled that the fight was not over.

CoinDesk reports that councilors who opposed the deal were concerned about reputational risk to the state. Supporters, including Governor Kelly Ayotte, saw a chance for New Hampshire to establish itself as a home for innovative finance without putting public money behind the instrument.

The vote landed on the narrowest possible margin. One councilor changing sides would have produced a different outcome, and Ammon said proponents were not giving up.

CoinDesk described the council vote as the last government approval the bond needed. The rejection came after the proposal had already advanced through the state’s finance-authority process.

The proposal had already cleared a hurdle that once would have sounded improbable: a major credit-rating firm evaluated a Bitcoin-backed public-finance structure and assigned it a rating.

Bloomberg Law reported in April that Moody’s gave the deal a provisional Ba2 rating. That sits two notches below investment grade, in the speculative-grade category.

The rating was not an endorsement of Bitcoin or a declaration that the bond was safe. It was a professional assessment that the structure, collateral, custody, and repayment mechanics could be analyzed inside the same credit framework used for other debt.

The provisional label reflected a transaction that had not yet closed. Any final rating would have depended on the completed documents and deal terms.

Crossing that line matters. Crypto-backed borrowing has existed for years, but much of it has lived on exchanges, in decentralized protocols, or through private agreements.

This deal tried to put Bitcoin collateral behind a rated security issued through an established state authority.

New Hampshire has already taken a more welcoming posture toward Bitcoin than most states. It became the first state to create a legal framework for a crypto reserve in 2025.

The bond was a different proposition. A reserve law concerns what a government may hold on its own balance sheet.

This proposal concerned whether a state-created finance authority should lend its name and issuance channel to a private, Bitcoin-collateralized transaction.

That is why both sides could claim they were protecting New Hampshire.

Supporters said the limited-recourse structure insulated taxpayers while giving the state fees, market leadership, and a foothold in a new category of capital formation. Opponents believed the state still had something at risk even without a repayment obligation: its institutional reputation.

The 3-2 rejection shows that removing taxpayer liability does not remove politics. A state can be legally insulated from a bond and still decide that serving as the conduit carries too much symbolic or reputational exposure.

It also exposes the unusual position crypto now occupies in traditional finance.

A rating agency was willing to grade the deal. A regulated custodian was prepared to hold the collateral.

Lawyers built liquidation triggers and limited-recourse protections. A private borrower was willing to overcollateralize the debt by roughly 60%.

None of those pieces guaranteed approval from elected officials.

For CleanSpark and the proposed borrower trust, the immediate consequence is simple: this bond cannot be issued through the New Hampshire authority under the rejected proposal. No $100 million was raised, and no state-authorized bond entered the market.

For the broader industry, the result is more complicated. The structure now exists, the credit work has been done, and the political objection was specific enough for another state or a future New Hampshire council to revisit it.

The rejection may slow the first deal without ending the category.

That makes the vote less a verdict on whether Bitcoin can support a rated bond than a warning about the last mile. Crypto can satisfy lawyers, custodians, and credit analysts and still fail when a public body decides the association itself carries a cost.

New Hampshire did not reject a request to gamble taxpayer money on Bitcoin. It rejected a request to let a private Bitcoin-backed bond pass through a state authority.

One vote made the difference. The next attempt will know exactly where the resistance lives.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

 

Search ProCoinNews