Skip to content

Bills · 2025-2026 Regular Session

AB 892

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

Relating to: digital asset staking and the state’s securities laws.

Data processing Financial institution Securities — Regulation

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. 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 page

No 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 page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Jan 23, 2026 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Neylon, Gustafson, Tranel, Tusler, Wittke and Knodl; cosponsored by Senator Cabral-Guevara

  2. Jan 23, 2026 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Science, Technology, and AI

  3. Feb 4, 2026 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  4. Feb 10, 2026 · Assembly

    Representative Ortiz-Velez added as a coauthor

  5. Feb 11, 2026 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  6. Feb 11, 2026 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by Committee on Science, Technology, and AI, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  7. Feb 11, 2026 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  8. Feb 18, 2026 · Assembly

    Made a special order of business at 11:42 AM on 2-19-2026 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 14

  9. Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  10. Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed

  11. Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  12. Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  13. Feb 19, 2026 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  14. Feb 23, 2026 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  15. Feb 27, 2026 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism

  16. Mar 13, 2026 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  17. Mar 13, 2026 · Senate

    Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  18. Mar 13, 2026 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  19. Mar 23, 2026 · Senate

    Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1