2026 Interim Study Committees

15 October 2026 · 9:30 a.m., scheduled to 3:00 p.m. · Room 412 East, State Capitol

This meeting has not yet been held. Everything below comes from the agenda and the documents the Legislative Council has posted for it, as retrieved on the morning of 15 October 2026. It does not report what was said at the meeting. The agenda states that all of its times are approximations. The chair had announced this meeting for Room 411 South; the official notice places it in Room 412 East.

What is on the agenda

Call to order and roll call; approval of the minutes of the 18 August meeting; and discussion of materials distributed by Legislative Council staff. Then, at the approximate times listed:

• 9:55 a.m. State Treasurer John Leiber.
• 10:20 a.m. Alison Mangiero, Chief Strategy Officer and Head of U.S. Policy, and Peter Herzog, Director, U.S. State Policy and Government Affairs, Crypto Council for Innovation.
• 10:45 a.m. Anthony J. Apollo, Executive Director, Wyoming Stable Token Commission.
• 11:10 a.m. Brian Kaas, President, TruStage Digital Assets.
• 11:35 a.m. Anastasia Dellaccio, Executive Director, State and Regional Affairs, The Digital Chamber.
• 1:00 p.m. Steven O. Weise, Partner, Proskauer Rose, LLP, and David I. Cisar, Attorney, von Briesen & Roper, S.C., on 2027 LRB‑0372/P1, relating to adopting the Uniform Law Commission’s 2022 amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code.
• 1:30 p.m. Karla Carpenter, President, Badgers4Freedom.

Lunch is listed at noon, discussion of the committee assignment at 2:00 p.m., and adjournment at 3:00 p.m. The agenda includes no public comment item. The final agenda differs from the preliminary agenda of 10 October only in adding Peter Herzog to the 10:20 a.m. presentation.

Staff Memo No. 1: options relating to stablecoins

Memo No. 1, “Potential Options for Committee Discussion Relating to Stablecoins,” is dated 9 October 2026 and comes from Brian Larson, Principal Attorney, and Patrick Ward, Senior Staff Attorney. It describes itself as “a starting point for topics of discussion that the committee may wish to pursue in considering preliminary bill drafts.” It opens with background on payment stablecoins and the federal GENIUS Act (P.L. 119‑27): 100 per cent reserve backing in assets such as U.S. dollars or short-term Treasury bills, monthly disclosure of reserves, state chartering of issuers where the state’s regime is compliant with federal standards, approval of state frameworks by a Stablecoin Certification Review Committee chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, and a general ceiling of $10 billion on issuance by state-regulated issuers. It then sets out three groups of options.

• Facilitating the use of stablecoins in commerce. First, the 2022 UCC amendments on controllable electronic records, which the memo says 36 states and the District of Columbia have enacted; its footnote lists Wisconsin among the states where no action has been taken. Second, custody: Minnesota’s HF 3709, in effect since 1 August 2026, allows banks and credit unions to provide custodial services for virtual currencies, including stablecoins. The services are provided in a nonfiduciary capacity, are overseen by the state regulators of banks and credit unions, and require custodians to segregate digital assets and maintain cybersecurity measures. Third, authorising government agencies and offices to use stablecoins, with examples from Florida (HB 1078, enacted 11 June 2026, accepting approved stablecoins for government fees), a proposed Alabama bill (HB 544) and a New York bill on bail (AB 7807).
• A study. Legislation could define a scope of study (the stablecoin ecosystem and other jurisdictions’ regulatory efforts; legal, financial and technological considerations for a state framework; potential benefits and risks and ways to encourage or mitigate them; and development of a state framework for issuers), and either direct an agency to carry it out or establish a commission to do so. The memo lists possible commission members: members of the Legislature; designees of state agencies, including the Department of Justice or the Department of Financial Institutions; the State Treasurer or a designee; and members of the cryptocurrency, blockchain, digital assets or financial technology industry and of the financial services industry. The agency or commission would report its activities, findings and any recommendations. The memo cites New Hampshire’s commission under HB 310, a similar Hawaii bill (SB 2493) and Delaware’s task force under Senate Concurrent Resolution 143.
• A state framework for regulating stablecoin issuers. Possible models: frameworks enacted in California (AB 39, 2023), Alabama (HB 259, 6 April 2026) and Delaware (SB 19, 7 July 2026); New York’s regulation of digital asset companies and Wyoming’s 2019 special purpose depository institutions law; The Digital Chamber’s model “Payment Stablecoin Regulatory Framework Act”; and Wyoming’s 2023 law creating the Wyoming Stable Token Commission, which issued the Frontier Stable Token ($FRNT) on 7 January 2026.

The preliminary draft: 2027 LRB‑0372/P1

The draft is marked as a preliminary draft, “not ready for introduction,” for the 2027–2028 Legislature. It has not been introduced and has no bill number. Its relating clause is “adopting the Uniform Law Commission’s 2022 amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code.” In 106 pages it creates a new chapter 412 of the statutes, the UCC article on “controllable electronic records,” and amends chapters 401 to 411. The Legislative Reference Bureau’s analysis says it makes significant changes to the law on secured transactions, defines “electronic money,” sets “take-free” rules for qualifying purchasers, and addresses “only commercial law rules, not the regulation or taxation of digital assets or such matters as securities status or intellectual property rights associated with digital assets.” Its transition rules use an “adjustment date” of roughly one year after the effective date or 1 July 2029, whichever is later. Steven O. Weise and David I. Cisar are listed to present it. WDBC’s library entry on UCC Article 12 explains the amendments.

What the presenters filed

As of the morning of the meeting, four of the listed presenters had filed materials. Each summary below describes what the document says; it is not our assessment of it.

• Anthony Apollo, Wyoming Stable Token Commission: “Wyoming’s Digital Frontier.” The slides describe the Frontier Stable Token (FRNT) as the first fiat-backed, fully reserved stable token issued by a public entity in the United States, publicly available since 7 January 2026 through the Kraken exchange and issued on eight blockchains. Reserves are cash, short-duration Treasuries and repurchase agreements, with a 102 per cent reserve requirement, and net interest income is distributed quarterly to Wyoming’s School Foundation Program. The Commission sells through “Licensed Service Providers,” a category the slides say can include community banks and credit unions. They state that the Commission “has the ability to issue ‘branded’ tokens on behalf of other states,” and list 2026 interim topics in Wyoming: converting the Commission into a “Digital Asset Authority,” sharing reserve income with token holders, and commodity-backed tokens.
• Brian Kaas, TruStage Digital Assets: “Stablecoins and the New Era of Money Movement.” The Madison-based company presents the TruStage Stablecoin (TSDA), described as fully reserved and designed for credit unions and community banks, and sets out opportunities and threats for depository institutions, including deposit erosion. It proposes a Wisconsin framework to “support and simplify compliant stablecoin usage without weakening reserve, redemption or consumer protections”: access and education through banks and credit unions, pilot programs with transaction caps, updated banking regulations and examination procedures, and parity between state and federally chartered institutions.
• Steven O. Weise and David I. Cisar: the 2022 UCC amendments. An overview of the Uniform Commercial Code, the goals and drafting of the 2022 amendments, and their key concepts of the “controllable electronic record” and “control.” The slides state that the UCC “takes no position in favor of or against use of digital assets, such as cryptocurrency and government-based digital currency,” and include a map of state enactments and introductions as of 10 October 2026.
• Karla Carpenter, Badgers4Freedom: six handouts. A preliminary draft “Cash Acceptance by Government Entities Act (CAGE),” which would require state and local bodies to accept cash for fees, fines, taxes and similar payments; three publications of the Solari Report, including model legislation (the “CLEAR Act”) on the use of digital assets that can be frozen or restricted by the party that controls them; a paper by Manuel and Susan Luschas on data center capacity; and Badgers4Freedom’s “Tokenization, Sovereign Rights, and Legal Tender in Wisconsin” (14 October 2026), which reviews LRB‑0372/P1 alongside the CAGE and CLEAR proposals.

No materials had been posted for State Treasurer John Leiber, the Crypto Council for Innovation or The Digital Chamber.

Documents filed for this meeting13 documents, archived and source copies

• Agenda (final) archived · source
• Memo No. 1, “Potential Options for Committee Discussion Relating to Stablecoins” (9 October 2026) archived · source
• 2027 LRB‑0372/P1, preliminary draft adopting the 2022 UCC amendments archived · source
• WisconsinEye livestream of this meeting (free WisconsinEye registration may be required) source
• Preliminary agenda (10 October 2026), superseded archived · source
• Presentation, “Wyoming’s Digital Frontier,” by Anthony Apollo, Executive Director, Wyoming Stable Token Commission archived · source
• Presentation, “Stablecoins and the New Era of Money Movement,” by Brian Kaas, President, TruStage Digital Assets source
• Presentation by Steven O. Weise, Partner, Proskauer Rose, LLP, and David I. Cisar, Attorney, von Briesen & Roper, S.C. archived · source
• Handout from Karla Carpenter, “Cash Acceptance by Government Entities Act (CAGE): Preliminary Draft” archived · source
• Handout from Karla Carpenter, “Tokenization, Sovereign Rights, and Legal Tender in Wisconsin,” by Badgers4Freedom (14 October 2026) archived · source
• Handout from Karla Carpenter, “Solari Model Legislation: Version 1.0 Expanded,” by the Solari Report source
• Handout from Karla Carpenter, “The CLEAR Act: Financial Transaction Freedom Briefing,” by the Solari Report (10 September 2026) source
• Handout from Karla Carpenter, “Programmable Money: The Time for Guardrails is Now,” by the Solari Report (July 2026) source
• Handout from Karla Carpenter, “Data Centers: What do we need all this data for? A Mathematical Analysis,” by Manuel and Susan Luschas (22 September 2026) source

Documents their authors marked confidential, and publications by third parties, link to the Legislative Council’s copy only. The preliminary agenda’s source link now serves the final agenda.

18 August 2026 · 10:00 a.m. · Room 412 East, State Capitol

Minutes for this meeting were published after our first write-up. What follows is drawn from them, from the published agenda and from the materials filed. The recording below is the full record.

What was on the agenda

Call to order and roll call; opening remarks by Anne Sappenfield, Director of the Legislative Council staff; introduction of committee members and of the assignment; a description of the distributed materials by committee staff; four presentations; a roundtable on members’ priorities for the committee; and plans for future meetings.

What was presentedPresenters and filed statements

Jeffrey M. Glazer, Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law & Entrepreneurship Clinic, filed a technical briefing on blockchains, validators and staking. It separates funding a validator from operating one: in solo staking the customer keeps the withdrawal credential, in exchange staking the exchange holds both keys and the customer holds a book entry, and in liquid staking the credential points at the protocol’s own contract and the customer holds a token. It puts the population able to run a validator alone at about 0.06 per cent of Ethereum addresses with a balance (roughly 120,000 of some 200 million), and gives break-even for a staking service at a 10 per cent commission as roughly 21,600 ETH under management, against operating expenses of about $122,000 a year.

Michael Gavigan, Assistant Chief Legal Counsel in the Office of the Secretary, and Robin Jacobs, Attorney Supervisor in the Enforcement Bureau, presented for the Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Securities. Their deck sets out the two definitional tests in s. 551.102 (28), Stats. (the Howey investment-contract test and the risk-capital test), and sorts staking into four kinds: solo home staking, bespoke staking-as-a-service, DeFi pooled staking, and CeFi scalable staking. It lists ten ways scalable services differ from solo staking, among them pooling with no minimum, taking custody, setting their own fees and returns, running additional reward layers such as MEV, assuming governance rights over custodied assets, and issuing wrapped liquidity tokens. It states that relevant court proceedings, SEC v. Kraken (2023), SEC v. Binance (2024), SEC v. Coinbase (2024) and the FTX bankruptcy (2022), “further suggest CEFI-level staking services are likely securities.” It also carries the Division’s enforcement remedies and 2025 Wisconsin fraud data: residents over 60 reported 3,014 elder-fraud complaints to the FBI and more than $92 million in losses, including over $43 million from investment scams and $46 million from cryptocurrency scams. A closing slide lists items other than staking the committee could reach: a broad carve-out of crypto from the definition of securities, a narrower carve-out, a UCC update for controllable electronic records, entrepreneurial or liaison offices and pilot projects, and the federal CLARITY Act.

Dave Groshek, Vice President of Advocacy at The Wisconsin Credit Union League, appeared with Heather Ristow, Senior Vice President and Chief Experience Officer, and Ryan McMillan, Technology Services Director, both of Corporate Central Credit Union. His filed statement puts the League’s membership at 3.9 million, points to the GENIUS Act being implemented through the NCUA and the CLARITY Act pending in the U.S. Senate as the reason the timing is right for the state to look at this, and asks that any recommendation protect members from fraud, keep meaningful enforcement against fraudulent activity, and let credit unions offer digital currency services if they choose to.

Chris Borgerding, Vice President of Government Relations at the Wisconsin Bankers Association (which he says represents 96 per cent of Wisconsin banks and their 30,000 employees) filed a statement built around one distinction and five principles. The distinction: a person who commits cryptocurrency they continue to control is doing something closer to operating equipment, while a person who hands assets to a company that sets the terms, takes a fee and advertises a return is in a different arrangement, and the committee’s charge describes the second. The five principles: regulate the relationship rather than the technology; if existing protections are removed, replace them with something; preserve the state’s authority to act against fraud, because declaring an activity outside a body of law takes the anti-fraud provisions with it; tell consumers what they are getting into, given lock-up periods, network penalties, rehypothecation and the absence of deposit insurance; and watch the federal timeline, because what exists federally is staff-level guidance rather than a rule or a statute. The statement says WBA is not asking the committee to recommend prohibiting anything and is not opposed to the technology.

Direction from the committee

The minutes record that Public Members Michael Adam and Phil Suckow were excused. In the closing roundtable Chair Stafsholt offered his view that any legislation should avoid unintended consequences, “such as unintentionally making a situation worse or inadvertently picking winners and losers in an area,” and that the committee should determine whether legislation is needed at all before making any recommendation. He described the first meeting as information gathering and the second as “idea generation.”

Patrick Ward of the Legislative Council staff noted that the committee could hear testimony about the federal framework for stablecoins and the potential role of the state in that area, and the chair noted possible federal changes through the CLARITY Act before the next meeting. In closing, the chair “invited members of the committee and members of the public to reach out about specific topics or speakers for the committee to consider,” and announced the next meeting for 15 October 2026.

Documents filed for this meeting8 documents, archived and source copies

• Agenda archived · source
• Minutes archived · source
• Staff Brief 2026‑03, Study Committee on Cryptocurrency (11 August 2026) archived · source
• Glazer presentation, “Crypto and Exchanges: A technical briefing on blockchains, validators, and staking” archived · source
• DFI Division of Securities presentation archived · source
• Testimony of Dave Groshek, The Wisconsin Credit Union League archived · source
• Handout from Dave Groshek, The Wisconsin Credit Union League, “Custodial Accounts for Digital Assets in Wisconsin” (filed 12 October 2026) archived · source
• Testimony of Chris Borgerding, Wisconsin Bankers Association archived · source
• Email from Michael Gavigan, Assistant Chief Legal Counsel, Department of Financial Institutions, listing sources referenced in the department’s 18 August presentation (7 October 2026) source
• Recording of the livestream (free WisconsinEye registration required) source