Bills · 2025-2026 Regular Session
Relating to: digital asset staking and the state’s securities laws.
Data processing Financial institution Securities — Regulation
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- Law, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, a person may not offer or sell any security in this state unless the security is registered with the Department of Financial Institutions, the security or transaction is exempt from registration, or the security is a federal covered security.
This bill specifies that digital asset staking and “staking as a service” are not securities under the state’s securities laws. The bill defines a “digital asset” as any digital representation of value that is recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger or other similar technology, including cryptocurrency. The bill defines “staking” as the act of committing or locking a digital asset to support the security and operations of a blockchain protocol that uses a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism by either operating a validator node or delegating the digital asset to a validator. The bill defines “staking as a service” as the provision of technical solutions by a third-party service provider to token owners to enable their participation in staking.
Sponsors
Introduced by: Gustafson (R) , Knodl (R) , Neylon (R) , Tranel (R) , Tusler (R) , Wittke (R)
2 cosponsors
Cabral-Guevara (R) , Ortiz-Velez (D)
Registered lobbying interests · 2
Organizations that registered lobbying activity on this bill with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. Registration means interest, not a position for or against. Official record
Votes
Assembly: Report passage recommended by Committee on Science, Technology, and AI, Ayes 3, Noes 2
Passed 3–2 Feb 11, 2026 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Senate: Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism, Ayes 3, Noes 2
Passed 3–2 Mar 13, 2026 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Jan 23, 2026 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Neylon, Gustafson, Tranel, Tusler, Wittke and Knodl; cosponsored by Senator Cabral-Guevara
- Jan 23, 2026 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to Committee on Science, Technology, and AI
- Feb 4, 2026 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Feb 10, 2026 · Assembly
Representative Ortiz-Velez added as a coauthor
- Feb 11, 2026 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Feb 11, 2026 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by Committee on Science, Technology, and AI, Ayes 3, Noes 2
- Feb 11, 2026 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Feb 18, 2026 · Assembly
Made a special order of business at 11:42 AM on 2-19-2026 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 14
- Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed
- Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Feb 23, 2026 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Feb 27, 2026 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism
- Mar 13, 2026 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Mar 13, 2026 · Senate
Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism, Ayes 3, Noes 2
- Mar 13, 2026 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Mar 23, 2026 · Senate
Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1