It spells out how custody would work, who gets to make the calls, and even what happens if the state loses control of its private keys.
The bill runs long and detailed, and for good reason: HB 183 is meant to show that Florida can actually hold crypto in a way that passes audit.
It defines digital assets to include Bitcoin, tokenized securities, and other cryptographically recorded instruments under Florida’s electronic record laws. It also opens the door to exchange-traded products that hold digital assets alongside stocks or commodities.
That expansion means the state isn’t only talking about stacking Bitcoin. It’s positioning itself to own exposure through SEC-registered ETFs or even tokenized securities, as long as they meet custody and disclosure standards.
The bill designates the Chief Financial Officer as the central actor. The CFO could allocate up to 10% of each state fund account, from General Revenue to trust and agency funds, into approved crypto or ETF instruments.
The same ceiling applies to the pension system, where the State Board of Administration could invest up to 10% of the Florida Retirement System Trust Fund. Those limits mirror last year’s bill but clarify that the cap applies per account, not to all funds collectively, effectively widening the potential pool.
None of it is mandatory, as these are ceilings, not quotas, but the legal authorization is sweeping enough to matter.
Custody and control rules have been tightened. Any digital asset the state buys must remain under continuous control, either held directly by the CFO or through a qualified custodian that can legally perfect a security interest. If that control lapses, the state has five business days to fix it.
Lending is allowed but only if the loans are fully collateralized, with the CFO free to require overcollateralization by rule. These are the kind of operational guardrails designed to answer the question that killed the first bill: how do you secure a public treasury’s private keys?
HB 183 even accounts for taxes or fees received in crypto, requiring them to be swept into General Revenue and reimbursed in dollars, a small but telling sign that drafters are thinking about accounting friction as much as ideology.
The numbers behind the 10% figure make the bill more than symbolic. The Florida Retirement System holds about $218 billion.
A 1% allocation there would equal roughly $2.2 billion, already more than most daily spot Bitcoin ETF flows.
A 5% allocation would approach $11 billion, and that’s before counting other state funds like the $4.9 billion Budget Stabilization Fund, which could theoretically add hundreds of millions more.
None of these moves would happen overnight, but even a cautious 1% pilot would introduce a new source of steady demand into a market that now relies heavily on ETFs for inflows.
The legal and political obstacles remain steep. The bill exempts crypto holdings from some of the state’s public-deposit security rules, but that doesn’t solve the larger issue of volatility and fiduciary risk. Public funds are built on liquidity and predictability; Bitcoin is neither.
The five-day cure clause for custody lapses may look tidy on paper, but it’s untested in public-sector practice. Auditors will want proof that Florida can document and value these holdings as rigorously as its Treasuries or equities.
There’s also the question of timing: even if the bill passes, each investment board still needs to amend its own policy statements before touching crypto.
HB 183, in short, isn’t a declaration that Florida will buy Bitcoin, but that Florida wants to make it legally possible to do so. It broadens the scope from one asset to an entire class, builds in control mechanisms, and sets the stage for cautious participation rather than speculative bets.
The 10% number grabs attention, but the real story lies in the state’s attempt to write down a legal playbook for sovereign crypto custody.
If that framework survives scrutiny and gains traction, it could become the first model of its kind in the US: a quiet but profound shift in how governments think about holding digital assets, one statute at a time.
