New Hampshire Executive Council Rejects $100M Bitcoin Bond Plan

The New Hampshire Executive Council voted 3-2 on Wednesday to reject a proposal to issue up to $100 million in taxable conduit revenue bonds secured by bitcoin for a private borrower affiliated with miner and data-center operator CleanSpark.

Under the plan, the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority would have acted as a conduit issuer to finance the borrower. CleanSpark would have deposited about $160 million in bitcoin as collateral. The proposal called for bond holdings to be liquidated and used to redeem the bonds if the collateral value fell below $140 million. BitGo was named to hold the bitcoin in segregated wallets.

The bonds were structured as limited-recourse obligations, meaning repayment would depend only on the bitcoin collateral and related proceeds. State taxpayers and the state’s general credit would not have been legally liable for repayment. In March, Moody’s Investors Service assigned the proposed bonds a Ba2 rating, two notches below investment grade.

Governor Kelly Ayotte supported the plan, describing it as “historic and innovative” for attracting investment without exposing state funds. State Representative Keith Ammon posted on X that “The EC decision yesterday chokes revenue that the Business Finance Authority receives from all future potential conduit bonds, which hurts our economic growth. It was an extremely short-sighted decision.” Materials released with the vote did not include detailed public explanations from council members who opposed the proposal.

Supporters said the structure would limit the state’s exposure because bondholders would be able to seek recovery only from the posted bitcoin and any proceeds. Opponents raised concerns about bitcoin’s price volatility and the use of cryptocurrency as the primary collateral for a public conduit financing.

The council’s rejection ends the immediate path for the CleanSpark-linked transaction to move forward through the Business Finance Authority under the proposed terms. Proponents indicated they may ask the council to reconsider the proposal at a future meeting.