South Dakota has brought up the issue of Bitcoin state reserves again. State legislator Logan Manhart has reintroduced HB1155, and the core remains unchanged: it allows the state investment council to allocate up to 10% of public funds to $BTC. This is not the first time; the version from 2025 was shelved, and this is just going through the process again. The point of contention is not whether to support Bitcoin, but whether such bills have any practical value. On one hand, it’s a statement of attitude: States like Texas, Arizona, and New Hampshire have passed similar bills, and the state-level public discussion of including BTC in the balance sheet is quite rare in political terms. On the other hand, it’s also very realistic: 10% is the cap, not a mandatory allocation; The passage of the bill does not equal an immediate purchase of coins; Even if they do buy, it has to go through the investment council, risk control, and multiple audit checkpoints, leaving very little room for execution. What’s more critical is that when compared to the federal level, it becomes even clearer. Trump has already signed an executive order for strategic Bitcoin reserves, but the White House itself admits it is stuck on legal details, and has not even clearly allowed for direct purchases of BTC, only being able to use seized assets to build inventory. State government bills like this cannot escape the same question: Are you really making reserves, or are you just making a political statement? So I tend to see it as a signal rather than a definitive action: Bitcoin is being increasingly pulled into the public finance and political discussion space, but it is still far from consensus-level allocation. The current divergence is not about whether to have $BTC, but who will bear the risk, what money will be used, and what responsibilities will be taken.