Ohio legislature backs mining, self‑custody and tax relief

Lawmakers in Ohio’s House Technology and Innovation Committee have approved House Bill 116 — dubbed the “Bitcoin Rights” measure — with a unanimous 13‑0 vote. The legislation safeguards personal control over encrypted digital assets, explicitly legalises individual and corporate mining and node operation, and provides a state income‑tax break of up to US $200 per transaction in capital gains from digital assets.

The bill, formally titled the Ohio Blockchain Basics Act, moves to the full House for a vote as part of an initiative to position the state as a hub for blockchain and cryptocurrency operations.

At the heart of the measure is the protection of self‑custody rights, allowing citizens to keep their crypto in hardware or self‑hosted wallets without interference from state or local authorities. It also shields miners and node operators from regulatory burdens. Individuals may mine at home, in residential zones, and businesses may operate industrial‑scale mining farms where zoning rules permit. Additionally, digital‑asset activities such as mining, staking, token swaps and node‑running would not trigger money‑transmitter or investment licensing requirements.

Another key component is the $200 per transaction exclusion from Ohio state income tax on capital gains from digital assets used as payment. That threshold is set to rise annually with inflation, offering relief to small‑scale users and encouraging routine use of cryptocurrency in commerce. Local governments, including municipalities and charter counties, would also be barred from imposing their own taxes or fees on such transactions.

The legislative analysis explains that the bill prevents state or locality from prohibiting acceptance of crypto as payment or from confiscating hardware or wallets. In industrial zones, mining operations enjoy protections from discriminatory rezoning, though noise and zoning regulations still apply.

Proponents, including the bill’s primary sponsor, Representative Steve Demetriou, have framed the bill as a foundational move to foster technology innovation, champion financial autonomy and attract blockchain businesses to Ohio. The bipartisan, unanimous committee vote reflects broad political willingness to embed crypto‑friendly measures at state level.

Supporters argue Ohio will benefit economically by drawing in infrastructure investment and fostering public familiarity with digital assets — especially with enhanced legal certainty and tax incentives in place.

However, critics caution that the bill may leave regulatory gaps, presenting consumer‑protection and environmental challenges. Concerns have been raised over potential disregard for energy‑intensive mining’s impact on local power grids and carbon emissions. Others warn that dubbing activities like mining and staking as outside the scope of money‑transmitter laws could allow for unmonitored financial operations.

Industry experts and legal analysts note that the bill’s nuanced definitions — covering digital assets, hardware wallets, self‑hosted wallets, nodes and mining operations — constitute one of the more comprehensive legal frameworks for crypto in the US. Its allowance for pension funds to study digital‑asset ETF investment is also seen as a significant institutional development.

Under the bill, each state retirement system must submit a report within a year assessing the viability, advantages and risks of investing in digital‑asset ETFs, and offer recommendations to reduce exposure in case of such investments.

Should the full House and Senate pass the bill and the governor sign it, Ohio will rank among the most crypto‑welcoming states. Observers suggest that its balanced approach — mixing legal clarity, tax relief and targeted environmental zoning controls — may serve as a model for other jurisdictions exploring blockchain policy frameworks.

With the committee stage complete, attention now turns to the legislature’s upper chamber, where further amendments or debates may arise. Policy‑wonks will be watching for potential changes on environmental stipulations and consumer protections, as well as alterations to the tax‑exemption levels.