Author: Michael Tabone, CoinTelegraph; Translated by: Deng Tong, Golden Finance

On February 4, the new cryptocurrency Tsar David Sacks said at a press conference that the bicameral cryptocurrency working group is studying strategies Bitcoin Reserves (SBR), and stressed that “the concept of sovereign wealth funds is a little different.”

In fact, sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have been widely understood by the cryptocurrency community and are often mistaken for a tool that can naturally contain bitcoin or other digital assets. SWF is all investment funds that manage savings, usually established by surplus income such as oil profits or trade gains.

Their main goal is to grow and protect wealth over the long term and ensure economic stability for future generations. Unlike central banks that focus on managing currencies and currencies, sovereign wealth funds take a more strategic approach to investing in real estate, stocks, infrastructure and local businesses.

Essentially, they prioritize steady growth over high-risk investments, making them an important tool in seeking to ensure financial security beyond immediate needs.

The definition of sovereign wealth funds is Sacks quickly pointing out why sovereign wealth funds and SBRs should not be confused. The scope of sovereign wealth funds may be used for a wider purpose than specific reserves, including supporting corporate and market infrastructure.

23 states have introduced legislation on Bitcoin and digital assets. Source: Bitcoin Laws

Bill Hughes, senior legal counsel for blockchain software company Consensys, noted that the concept of sovereign wealth fund was created by US President Donald Trump on February 3 and could be used as a “ If the strategic reserves of cryptocurrencies only fail to succeed, the second option is”.

As these initiatives are strong, they raise an important question about the role of cryptocurrencies in grade investment strategies and what this means for the broader digital asset industry in 2025 and beyond.

The United States has established state-level sovereign wealth funds and Bitcoin reserve programs.

A few states already have sovereign wealth funds that meet this traditional definition of the United States. The Alaska Permanent Fund, founded in 1976, introduces oil revenues into a diversified portfolio to support state budgets and annual dividends for residents.

The Texas Permanent School Fund uses oil and gas revenue to fund public education while ensuring financial stability. Similarly, the Wyoming Permanent Mineral Trust and the North Dakota Heritage Fund invest in oil, gas and mineral extraction proceeds to smooth budget volatility and retain wealth for future generations.

New Mexico's Resource Tax Permanent Fund adopts a similar model to reinvest resource tax revenue from resource mining to supportThe state's financial health. Although these funds have different uses, they share a common goal: to transform temporary resource boom into lasting financial security.

If analysts leave a profitable state management fund (such as contingency funds or stability funds) also count, this number will increase. Some of these funds invest, sometimes in diversified portfolios.

Thus, there are as many as 23 states with some form of such investment vehicle. However, their authorization and structure may differ from the “classic” sovereign wealth fund model.

15 states have separate Bitcoin and Digital Asset Reserves Acts. Source: Bitcoin Laws

On the positive side, 15 states currently have at least Bitcoin and digital asset legislation introduced. In the current campaigns in these states, Arizona and Utah tied for the lead in the parliamentary voting level.

Arizona’s bill proposes the creation of a strategic Bitcoin reserve fund with a cap of 10% of public funds, but only if the United States establishes its own SBR. It is consistent with Senator Lummis’s Bitcoin bill, which aims to enable states to participate in federally managed programs.

Utah’s bill would allow 10% of several major state funds to be invested in digital assets, protecting self-custody and ensuring nodes are not classified as remittants. Utah’s bill has a broad definition of “digital assets”, without directly mentioning Bitcoin, and it takes a comprehensive approach to integrating cryptocurrencies into state-level investment strategies.

North Dakota Act (HB1184) and Wyoming Act (HB201) failed to pass their respective state procedures.

It's a question of time, not a question of whether it will happen

The rapid emergence of Bitcoin and digital asset reserve legislation at the state level marks the occurrence of perceptions of cryptocurrencies as speculative assets and potential strategic reserves A fundamental change.

Whether these efforts will translate into actual Bitcoin holdings or remain symbolic gestures will depend on willingness, regulatory transparency and market conditions. However, it is certain that these attempts have gone beyond theory.

As states experiment with digital asset reserves and the federal government formulates its own sovereign wealth strategy, the role of Bitcoin in public finance is no longer a question of whether, but "when" and "how" The problem.