Wisconsin lawmakers have introduced a bill that could exempt local crypto businesses and users from money transmitter licensing requirements, a move aimed at boosting blockchain development, mining, and staking activity in the state.

Introduced on Monday, Wisconsin Assembly Bill 471 proposes exemptions from the Department of Financial Institutions’ (DFI) licensing framework, clarifying which digital asset activities would not require state approval.

The bill reflects an ongoing push among US states to define clearer rules for crypto, even as federal regulation remains uncertain.

What the bill would change

According to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, the measure would exempt individuals and businesses from licensing requirements if they are:

  • Mining or staking cryptocurrencies.
  • Exchanging digital assets so long as transactions don’t involve conversion to fiat currency or bank deposits.
  • Developing blockchain protocols or related software.
  • Transferring assets peer-to-peer using blockchain networks.

The bill also explicitly protects the right of Wisconsinites to accept digital assets for payment of legal goods and services, as well as to hold coins in self-hosted wallets or hardware wallets. It further allows individuals to operate blockchain nodes and participate in staking without regulatory restrictions.

Supporters and path forward

The measure is sponsored by seven Republican lawmakers in the Wisconsin Assembly and backed by two GOP senators. However, the bill still faces a long road before enactment. According to Legiscan, it currently sits at a 25% progression rate, meaning it has only cleared initial referral stages. It must pass both chambers of the state legislature and survive multiple committee reviews.

Why it matters

If enacted, Wisconsin would join a growing list of US states seeking to make themselves friendlier to crypto businesses by carving out state-level regulatory clarity. Proponents argue the move could help attract blockchain startups and mining operations, while critics caution that leaving too much outside of regulatory oversight could raise risks for consumers.