On July 1st, New Hampshire's HB639 bill was registered. The terms, translated, are straightforward: local governments cannot restrict individuals from using digital assets for payments, cannot impose additional taxes on the use of digital assets, and individuals running nodes, mining, or staking do not need a currency transfer license, nor are they considered issuing securities. Looking at these terms alone, it's easy to categorize them as just another state relaxing regulations, something to be glanced at and forgotten. But the true weight of this card lies hidden in the last, seemingly insignificant authorization: The Supreme Court can establish a "Blockchain Dispute Tribunal" to specifically handle related civil disputes. This is the real objective of the entire bill. The Three Cards of New Hampshire HB639 was first proposed in January 2025, passed the House of Representatives in April of the same year, and after Senate amendments, it wasn't registered until July 2026, a process that took a year and a half. Its legislative basis comes from a report by the "Cryptocurrency and Digital Assets Commission" during former Governor Sununu's tenure. Earlier, New Hampshire had already achieved a "first in the nation": it became the first state in the U.S. to pass the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act (HB302), allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to invest up to 5% of public funds in digital assets with a market value exceeding $500 billion—currently, only Bitcoin qualifies. Earlier this year, New Hampshire also launched a $100 million Bitcoin-backed bond program, becoming the first state in the U.S. to explore such capital market products. This is the third card New Hampshire has played: first, HB302 opened the door for public funds to buy Bitcoin; then, it introduced Bitcoin-backed bonds to test the capital market; and now, with HB639, it's also securing its legal infrastructure. To understand how powerful the "Blockchain Dispute Tribunal" is, one must first understand the current state of corporate law in the United States. Delaware currently attracts 1.6 million company registrations, two-thirds of which are Fortune 500 companies. This dominance isn't based on low tax rates, but on its Court of Chancery system, which has been operating for over two centuries—expert judges adjudicate cases without juries, and its precedent system is so comprehensive that lawyers across the US refer to Delaware precedents. This "judicial certainty" is Delaware's core asset for reaping global company registration fees. Last year, a crack appeared in this moat. A Delaware court of equity rejected Elon Musk's $55 billion Tesla compensation package, citing a conflict of interest as Musk's controlling shareholder. This ruling directly triggered a capital migration: Tesla and SpaceX have moved their registered offices from Delaware to Texas, and Neuralink to Nevada. Texas subsequently passed legislation in 2023 to establish its own commercial court system, Utah established a commercial equity court, and Nevada is pushing for similar legislation. This ruling shook certainty, and several states immediately used their "more stable" legal infrastructure to vie for company registration rights. This is the universal script for all capital migration: money doesn't necessarily follow tax rates, but it definitely follows "who adjudicates cases when disputes arise, how quickly they are adjudicated, and how many precedents are available." What New Hampshire is trying to do now is apply this script to the new track of on-chain disputes—taking advantage of the fact that there isn't a "Delaware" yet in this track, to secure the judicial infrastructure first. The Wyoming Model This approach wasn't invented by New Hampshire. Wyoming established its own court of equity several years ago, specifically to handle commercial and trust disputes, aiming to seize a share of the company registration market from Delaware. However, it first targeted the niche market of blockchain companies. In 2019, Wyoming passed 13 blockchain-related laws in one go, bringing its total to approximately 30, making it the state with the highest density of crypto legislation in the United States. In 2020, Wyoming approved Kraken's application to establish the world's first Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI)—Kraken Financial. This is the first digital asset company in US history to simultaneously obtain federal and state banking licenses. Wyoming's leading position wasn't maintained by a single license, but by nearly a decade of continuous investment—clearly defining digital assets as property, legislating for the protection of private keys, and consistently being at the forefront of national digital asset policies. This continuity ultimately led to its real success: in June 2025, Kraken officially moved its headquarters from San Francisco to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Over the past four years, Kraken has invested $300,000 in the University of Wyoming's crypto education program and co-hosted blockchain workshops, which were publicly welcomed by Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis. It's worth noting that Kraken employees continue to work remotely; the relocation is primarily of the legal entity and headquarters registration location, rather than a complete physical relocation of the team. From obtaining a banking license to the actual establishment of its headquarters, a full five years passed. This is the key to understanding the true effect of this type of legislation: the capital migration brought about by legal infrastructure is not immediate cash, but an option that needs to be weathered over years, and even if it is realized, it may not be accompanied by the physical relocation of an entire team. A war more protracted than the tax rate race. The New Hampshire card is clearer when viewed within the broader context of the federal government. In July 2025, Trump signed the GENIUS Act, allowing banks, non-bank institutions, and credit unions to issue their own stablecoins. This May, Congress also pushed forward the "US Reserve Modernization Act," which aims to establish a formal strategic Bitcoin reserve within the Treasury Department. Arizona and Texas are also pushing for their own state-level Bitcoin reserve legislation. New Hampshire isn't alone in this race; it's the fastest runner in this nationwide "state-level race." For the past half-century, the competition between states to attract investment has focused on tax rates, subsidies, and land costs. This approach has its limits—taxes can be reduced to zero, and subsidies always have fiscal constraints. The judicial infrastructure track has a much higher ceiling. Delaware's strength doesn't come from preferential policies of any one year, but from two centuries of accumulated precedent and expert judge system. Once this moat is built, it's difficult to breach or surpass through short-term policies. This is why Musk's lawsuit loss didn't just trigger a single company relocation, but a simultaneous legislative response from three states; and why it took Wyoming a full five years from issuing the license to Kraken's actual relocation. Digital assets have simply provided a new entry point into this old war. There isn't a Delaware-specific category for on-chain disputes yet. Whoever accumulates enough precedents and establishes the professionalism of judges will have the opportunity to rewrite the rules of "company choice of place of registration"—the oldest profit-driven logic—in the next decade.
Weatherly
Alex
Miyuki
Weiliang