A Comprehensive Analysis of Public Fund Management: Fiduciary Duties, Traditional Strategies, and the Integration of Digital Assets

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

Abstract

The stewardship of public funds stands as a cornerstone of governmental responsibility, demanding unwavering adherence to established fiduciary duties, sophisticated investment strategies, and stringent compliance with legal and ethical mandates. This extensive research report undertakes a detailed exploration of the time-honored practices governing the management of public financial assets, meticulously dissects the multifaceted concept of fiduciary duty within the unique domain of public finance, and critically examines the profound challenges and imperative considerations associated with integrating novel, inherently volatile asset classes, such as digital assets, into public investment portfolios. By systematically investigating these interconnected areas, this report endeavors to furnish a holistic and nuanced understanding of the intricate complexities involved in managing taxpayer monies and the far-reaching implications that arise from embracing emerging, yet often uncertain, investment opportunities in a rapidly evolving global financial landscape.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

Public funds, encompassing a vast array of financial resources including state and municipal treasuries, public employee pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and endowment funds for public educational and charitable institutions, represent a profound societal trust. These significant financial assets are formally entrusted to public officials and appointed fiduciaries, who bear the solemn responsibility for their prudent management and strategic investment. The overarching objective is singularly focused: to ensure the long-term financial security, stability, and ultimate benefit of the public and their beneficiaries. This critical mandate necessitates a delicate and expertly managed balance between the pursuit of optimal investment returns and the rigorous mitigation of associated risks, all while upholding the highest standards of integrity and accountability.

This comprehensive report embarks on a journey to illuminate the traditional practices that have historically guided the investment of public funds, delves deeply into the foundational principles that underpin fiduciary duty in this specialized context, and meticulously analyzes the evolving landscape profoundly shaped by the advent and increasing prominence of digital assets. The integration of such novel assets presents both compelling opportunities for potential growth and formidable challenges to established risk paradigms and regulatory frameworks, demanding a fresh perspective grounded in enduring principles.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

2. The Ecosystem of Public Funds: Sources, Purposes, and Economic Impact

Public funds are the lifeblood of governmental operations and societal well-being, originating from a diverse array of sources and allocated to serve a multitude of critical purposes. Understanding this intricate ecosystem is paramount for crafting investment strategies that are precisely aligned with the specific needs, legal obligations, and long-term liabilities associated with each distinct fund.

2.1 Sources of Public Funds

The revenue streams feeding public coffers are varied and often interconnected, reflecting the broad scope of governmental activities and economic interactions:

• Tax Revenues: These constitute the primary and most substantial source of public funds. They include, but are not limited to:
  • Income Taxes: Levied on individual and corporate earnings.
  • Sales Taxes: Imposed on the sale of goods and services.
  • Property Taxes: Assessed on real estate, typically a cornerstone of local government funding.
  • Excise Taxes: Specific taxes on certain goods or services, such as fuel, tobacco, or alcohol.
  • Corporate Taxes: Levied on business profits.
    These taxes are compulsory contributions that underpin the vast majority of public spending and services.
• Fees and Fines: Governmental entities generate revenue through various fees for services (e.g., permits, licenses, vehicle registrations, court fees, park entrance fees) and through fines for violations of laws and regulations.
• Governmental Enterprise Revenues: Funds generated from government-owned or operated businesses, such as public utilities (water, electricity), transportation systems (toll roads, public transit), and state lotteries. These enterprises often operate on a commercial basis, with their surpluses contributing to public funds.
• Intergovernmental Transfers: Financial aid received from higher levels of government (e.g., federal grants to states, state aid to municipalities) for specific programs or general support.
• Borrowing (Bonds): While not a traditional ‘revenue’ in the perpetual sense, the issuance of municipal or state bonds allows governments to raise significant capital for large-scale infrastructure projects or to cover short-term budget deficits. This source, however, creates future debt obligations that must be serviced from other public funds.
• Asset Sales and Royalties: Revenues derived from the sale of public assets (e.g., land, surplus equipment) or royalties from natural resources extracted from public lands.

2.2 Purposes and Liabilities of Public Funds

The allocation of public funds is meticulously planned to address immediate operational needs, long-term societal goals, and intergenerational obligations:

• Public Services: Public funds are indispensable for financing essential services that underpin the functioning of society:
  • Education: From primary schools to state universities, funding for salaries, facilities, and educational programs.
  • Healthcare: Supporting public hospitals, Medicaid, and various public health initiatives.
  • Infrastructure: Investment in the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, public transit, water systems, and communication networks, which are crucial for economic activity and quality of life.
  • Public Safety: Funding for law enforcement, fire departments, emergency medical services, and correctional facilities.
• Social Programs: Supporting vital welfare programs, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, food security initiatives, and other social safety nets designed to protect vulnerable populations and promote social equity.
• Debt Obligations: A significant portion of public funds is allocated to meet governmental debt servicing requirements, including interest payments and principal repayments on outstanding bonds and other loans. Maintaining a strong credit rating is vital for future borrowing capacity and lower interest costs.
• Public Employee Pension Liabilities: Funding public employee retirement systems constitutes one of the largest and most complex long-term liabilities for many governments. These funds are designed to ensure promised retirement benefits for teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants. Actuarial assumptions about investment returns, salary growth, and life expectancy heavily influence funding requirements, and underfunded liabilities can pose significant fiscal challenges.
• Contingency Reserves and Emergency Funds: Maintaining reserves to address unforeseen emergencies, natural disasters, or economic downturns, ensuring governmental continuity and rapid response capabilities.

2.3 Economic Impact of Public Fund Management

Effective public fund management extends beyond mere budgetary balance; it plays a crucial role in broader economic stability and development. Prudent investment decisions can generate additional revenue, stabilize tax rates, fund future growth, and provide a buffer against economic shocks. Conversely, mismanagement can lead to fiscal crises, increased taxes, cuts in essential services, and erosion of public trust. Public funds are significant institutional investors, and their allocation decisions can influence capital markets, local economies, and the availability of capital for various sectors.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Foundations of Prudent Management: Traditional Investment Mandates and Risk Frameworks

Historically, the investment of public funds has been characterized by a conservative and disciplined approach, primarily aimed at preserving capital, ensuring liquidity for immediate needs, and achieving stable, if modest, returns. This approach has evolved considerably, moving from rigid ‘legal list’ restrictions to more flexible ‘prudent investor’ standards, while retaining core tenets of risk management.

3.1 Evolution of Traditional Mandates

Early investment statutes for public funds, often termed ‘legal list’ rules, strictly delineated a narrow range of permissible investments, typically consisting of highly rated government bonds and certain corporate fixed-income securities. The emphasis was almost exclusively on safety and preservation, with little consideration for modern portfolio theory or diversification benefits. Over time, recognizing the need for better returns to meet growing liabilities (especially for pension funds), these mandates evolved:

• Prudent Person Rule: This rule required fiduciaries to invest ‘as men of prudence, discretion, and intelligence manage their own affairs, not in regard to speculation, but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds, considering the probable income, as well as the probable safety of the capital sum.’ While an improvement, it often focused on individual asset risk rather than portfolio-level risk.
• Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA): Adopted by 44 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, UPIA marked a paradigm shift. It codified the ‘prudent investor rule,’ emphasizing a total return approach, diversification as a core duty, and the evaluation of investment decisions in the context of the overall portfolio and its risk-return characteristics rather than in isolation. This allowed fiduciaries to consider a broader range of asset classes, including equities and certain alternatives, provided they contributed to the portfolio’s overall risk-return profile (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Prudent_Investor_Act).

3.2 Core Principles of Traditional Investment Strategies

Despite the evolution, several fundamental principles have remained central to the prudent management of public funds:

• Capital Preservation: The paramount objective is to safeguard the principal value of the funds. Unlike private wealth, public funds are taxpayer money, and their loss can have direct and severe consequences on public services or future tax burdens. This often translates to a preference for low-risk, high-quality securities.
• Liquidity Management: Governments must ensure sufficient cash flow to meet immediate and anticipated financial obligations, such as payrolls, vendor payments, and debt service. This necessitates investing a portion of funds in highly liquid assets (e.g., money market instruments, short-term treasury bills) and carefully forecasting cash needs.
• Diversification: A cornerstone of modern portfolio theory, diversification involves spreading investments across various asset classes (e.g., equities, fixed income, real estate, commodities, private equity), geographies, and sectors to mitigate specific risks. The principle is that the poor performance of one asset class can be offset by the stronger performance of another, thereby reducing overall portfolio volatility. UPIA explicitly mandates a duty to diversify.
• Credit Quality Assessment: Investing in high-quality, investment-grade securities is crucial to minimize the risk of default. This involves rigorous analysis of issuers’ financial health, relying on independent credit rating agencies (e.g., Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, Fitch) and internal credit assessments. For public funds, low-risk, high-quality fixed income assets often form the bedrock of the portfolio.
• Alignment with Liabilities: Investment strategies are designed to match the duration and nature of the fund’s liabilities. For example, a pension fund with long-term payout obligations might invest in assets with longer durations and higher growth potential, while a general operating fund needing immediate liquidity would focus on short-term, stable investments.

3.3 Risk Management Practices

Robust risk management frameworks are integral to safeguarding public funds:

• Investment Policy Statements (IPS): These are formal documents that articulate the fund’s investment objectives, risk tolerance, asset allocation ranges, permissible investments, benchmarks, and rebalancing procedures. An IPS serves as a guiding document and a critical tool for accountability and oversight. It delineates the boundaries within which investment decisions must be made, ensuring consistency and discipline.
• Stress Testing and Scenario Analysis: Regular evaluation of the portfolio’s performance under various adverse economic scenarios (e.g., severe market downturns, interest rate spikes, inflation surges) helps identify potential vulnerabilities and inform contingency planning.
• Ongoing Monitoring and Reporting: Continuous oversight of investment performance against benchmarks, compliance with the IPS, and adherence to legal and regulatory requirements. Regular, transparent reporting to oversight bodies and the public is essential for accountability.
• Governance Structures: Establishing clear governance structures, including independent investment committees, expert staff, and the engagement of external consultants and asset managers, ensures professional oversight and specialized expertise in decision-making.

These traditional practices, continuously refined through decades of experience and legal evolution, are meticulously designed to protect the interests of the public, maintain the stability of governmental financial resources, and ensure the long-term solvency of critical public programs.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4. The Cornerstone of Public Trust: Fiduciary Duty in Public Finance

Fiduciary duty represents the highest legal standard of care owed by one party to another. In the context of public finance, it is the bedrock upon which public trust is built, obligating those entrusted with public funds to act with unwavering loyalty, prudence, and diligence solely for the benefit of the public beneficiaries. This duty transcends mere legal compliance; it embodies a profound ethical commitment.

4.1 Defining Fiduciary Duty

A fiduciary relationship arises when one person (the fiduciary) places trust and confidence in another (the beneficiary) to act on their behalf. In public finance, public officials, investment board members, and professional money managers managing public funds are fiduciaries for the taxpayers, public employees, and other beneficiaries dependent on those funds. This special relationship demands that the fiduciary prioritize the beneficiary’s interests above their own and above any other considerations, including political or personal gain.

The concept of fiduciary duty has deep roots in common law, evolving through judicial decisions and, more recently, through legislative enactments. For private pension plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) codified comprehensive fiduciary standards. While ERISA directly applies only to private plans, many state statutes governing public pension funds and other public trusts have adopted similar principles, tailoring them to the unique governmental context (corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/03/01/fiduciary-duties-of-public-pension-systems-and-registered-investment-advisors/).

4.2 Core Elements of Fiduciary Duty

In public finance, fiduciary duty manifests through several critical obligations:

• Duty of Loyalty: This is perhaps the most fundamental duty, requiring fiduciaries to act solely and exclusively in the best interests of the beneficiaries. It mandates that personal interests, political agendas, or third-party influences must never compromise investment decisions. This duty strictly prohibits self-dealing, conflicts of interest, or using public office for personal financial gain. For instance, selecting an investment manager based on political donations rather than merit would be a clear breach of loyalty.
• Duty of Care and Prudence: Fiduciaries must exercise the care, skill, caution, and diligence that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. This is often referred to as the ‘prudent expert’ standard. It requires fiduciaries to:
  • Conduct Due Diligence: Thoroughly research and understand investments before making decisions, including assessing risks, potential returns, and costs.
  • Seek and Utilize Expertise: Consult with qualified investment professionals, legal counsel, and other experts when necessary, especially for complex or novel investments.
  • Monitor Investments: Continuously review and evaluate the performance of investments, ensuring they remain appropriate for the fund’s objectives and risk tolerance.
  • Manage Risk: Implement comprehensive risk management strategies across the entire portfolio.
    The Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) is particularly significant here. It modernizes the concept of prudence by emphasizing a ‘total portfolio’ approach, permitting diversification into a broader range of asset classes, and assessing individual investment decisions in the context of the overall portfolio’s risk and return objectives. UPIA allows fiduciaries to delegate investment functions to qualified agents, provided the delegation is made prudently and the agent’s performance is monitored (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Prudent_Investor_Act). A related statute, the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA), governs charitable organizations and endowments, often managed with public oversight, and similarly emphasizes prudent investment principles (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Prudent_Management_of_Institutional_Funds_Act).
• Duty to Diversify: As explicitly stated in UPIA, fiduciaries have a duty to diversify the investments of the fund unless, under the circumstances, it is prudent not to do so. This is crucial for mitigating unsystematic risk and enhancing the overall risk-adjusted return of the portfolio.
• Duty to Control Costs: Fiduciaries must strive to minimize investment management fees, trading costs, and other administrative expenses, as excessive costs can significantly erode net returns over time. This requires careful negotiation with service providers and ongoing cost analysis.
• Duty to Maintain Impartiality: When managing funds for multiple beneficiaries or different classes of beneficiaries, fiduciaries must act impartially, avoiding favoritism or undue prejudice towards any group.
• Duty to Ensure Transparency and Accountability: Fiduciaries are expected to maintain accurate records, provide clear and regular reporting on investment decisions, fund performance, and expenses to beneficiaries and oversight bodies. This fosters public trust and allows for proper scrutiny of their actions.

4.3 Legal Frameworks and Enforcement

Fiduciary duties in public finance are enshrined in a complex web of legal frameworks, including state constitutions, specific state statutes governing pension funds and treasuries, administrative codes, and common law principles. State attorneys general, legislative oversight committees, and auditors play vital roles in enforcing these duties.

Breach of fiduciary duty can lead to significant consequences for individuals and institutions, ranging from personal financial liability for losses incurred, civil penalties, removal from office, to severe reputational damage. The strict enforcement of these duties underscores the critical importance of public trust and the unique sensitivity involved in managing taxpayer money (clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2025/06/27/the-essential-investor-fiduciary-duties-that-courts-and-policymakers-often-miss/).

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Navigating the New Frontier: Integrating Digital Assets into Public Portfolios

The advent of digital assets, characterized by innovative blockchain technology and cryptographic security, presents a novel and potentially transformative, yet inherently challenging, frontier for public fund management. While offering opportunities for diversification and potential high returns, their integration necessitates careful consideration of their unique risks and profound implications for established fiduciary frameworks.

5.1 Understanding Digital Assets

Digital assets broadly refer to assets that exist purely in digital form, are recorded on a distributed ledger, and often leverage cryptography for security. Key categories include:

• Cryptocurrencies: Decentralized digital currencies like Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) that operate independently of central banks, using blockchain to verify transactions.
• Stablecoins: Cryptocurrencies designed to minimize price volatility by pegging their value to a stable asset like a fiat currency (e.g., USD Coin, Tether) or a commodity.
• Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs): Unique digital assets that represent ownership of a specific item or piece of content, such as art, music, or virtual land.
• Tokenized Assets: Digital representations of real-world assets (e.g., real estate, commodities, securities) on a blockchain, offering potential for increased liquidity and fractional ownership.
• Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): Digital forms of a country’s fiat currency, issued and backed by its central bank, which are under active development by many nations and could represent a significant shift in monetary systems.

The underlying technology, particularly blockchain and distributed ledger technology (DLT), offers properties like immutability, transparency, and disintermediation, which proponents argue could revolutionize financial infrastructure. However, these characteristics also introduce new complexities for traditional investment paradigms.

5.2 Specific Challenges and Risks

The integration of digital assets into public portfolios is fraught with unique challenges that necessitate a departure from conventional risk assessment methodologies:

5.2.1 Regulatory Uncertainty and Legal Status

The legal and regulatory landscape surrounding digital assets remains nascent, fragmented, and highly dynamic across jurisdictions. This uncertainty is a primary concern for fiduciaries:

• Classification Issues: Digital assets defy easy categorization. Are they commodities (CFTC’s view for some crypto), securities (SEC’s view for many tokens), property, or a new asset class entirely? This ambiguity impacts regulatory oversight, disclosure requirements, and tax treatment (lawlibrarianship.com/legal-status-of-digital-assets/).
• Jurisdictional Arbitrage: The global and borderless nature of digital assets allows for regulatory arbitrage, where projects or exchanges operate from jurisdictions with laxer rules, increasing risks for investors.
• Lack of Unified Framework: The absence of a consistent global or even national regulatory framework creates compliance challenges and operational hurdles for institutional investors.
• Evolving Guidance: While governments like the U.S. have issued executive orders to develop comprehensive regulatory approaches (bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/03/09/executive-order-on-ensuring-responsible-development-of-digital-assets/), concrete rules and enforcement actions are still in development, creating an environment of ‘regulation by enforcement’ in some cases (sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/lizarraga-brooklyn-law-school-20221116).

5.2.2 Extreme Volatility and Market Manipulation

Digital asset markets are notorious for their extreme price volatility, which far surpasses that of traditional asset classes. This presents significant risks to the stability and principal preservation mandate of public funds:

• Narrative-Driven Price Swings: Prices are often heavily influenced by news, social media sentiment, and speculative narratives rather than traditional fundamental economic factors.
• Market Manipulation: The relatively shallow liquidity in some digital asset markets, coupled with less robust regulatory oversight compared to traditional exchanges, makes them susceptible to ‘pump and dump’ schemes, insider trading, and other manipulative practices.
• Limited Historical Data: The short history of many digital assets means limited data for robust statistical analysis, making traditional risk modeling and forecasting less reliable.
• Impact on Portfolio Stability: High volatility can lead to significant fluctuations in portfolio value, potentially eroding public confidence and making it difficult to meet short-term liabilities if funds need to be liquidated during a downturn.

5.2.3 Security and Custody Concerns

The decentralized and digital nature of these assets introduces novel and complex security challenges:

• Cybersecurity Risks: Digital assets are prime targets for cyberattacks, including exchange hacks, phishing scams, malware, and smart contract vulnerabilities. The loss of private keys can mean irreversible loss of assets.
• Custody Solutions: Securely storing digital assets (‘custody’) is a critical concern. Traditional financial custodians have well-established infrastructure and insurance. For digital assets, specialized institutional custodians are emerging, offering cold storage (offline), multi-signature wallets, and insurance. However, the ecosystem is still maturing, and assessing the robustness and reliability of these solutions is complex.
• Operational Security: The operational procedures for managing digital assets, from transaction execution to key management, require specialized expertise and rigorous internal controls to prevent errors or malicious acts.

5.2.4 Fiduciary Duty Compliance in a Novel Asset Class

The integration of digital assets forces a re-evaluation of how fiduciaries can meet their duties of loyalty, care, and prudence in an uncharted territory:

• Prudence and Due Diligence: How does a fiduciary demonstrate prudence when investing in an asset class with limited historical data, evolving technology, and uncertain regulatory status? It requires extraordinary due diligence, reliance on specialized, credible experts, and a deep understanding of the underlying technology and market dynamics.
• Diversification: While digital assets could offer diversification benefits due to their potential low correlation with traditional assets, the high correlation observed during market downturns (e.g., ‘crypto winter’ events) challenges this assumption. Fiduciaries must carefully assess true diversification potential.
• Long-Term Horizon: Public pension funds typically have long-term investment horizons. Assessing the long-term viability and intrinsic value of many digital assets, beyond speculative trading, is a significant challenge.
• Complexity: The technical complexity of blockchain technology and digital asset protocols demands a level of understanding that may exceed the traditional expertise of many public fund fiduciaries.

5.2.5 Ethical and Environmental Considerations

Beyond financial risks, the ethical and environmental dimensions of digital assets are increasingly scrutinized, impacting public perception and alignment with broader public policy goals:

• Energy Consumption: The Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism used by some prominent cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin is highly energy-intensive, raising significant environmental concerns. While newer mechanisms like Proof-of-Stake (PoS) are more energy-efficient, the environmental footprint remains a contentious issue (link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-025-06051-4).
• Association with Illicit Activities: Digital assets have, at times, been linked to illicit activities such as money laundering, ransomware payments, and financing of terrorism, despite efforts to improve traceability and compliance (dfi.wa.gov/consumers/virtual-currency). This association can generate negative public perception and political pressure.
• Public Perception and Trust: Public funds are entrusted with taxpayer money, and investments perceived as speculative, environmentally harmful, or associated with illicit activities can severely erode public trust and generate political backlash.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Case Studies and Emerging Precedents in Digital Asset Integration

The theoretical debates surrounding digital assets are increasingly being tested by practical applications and explorations by public entities. Examining these instances offers valuable insights into the complexities, motivations, and challenges faced by pioneering public fund managers.

6.1 Pioneering Public Entities

Several states and municipalities have begun to explore, or even directly invest in, the digital asset space, albeit with varying degrees of direct exposure and through different strategic lenses.

• Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office: Wyoming has positioned itself as a leader in digital asset innovation, establishing a progressive legislative framework that recognizes digital assets as property, facilitates decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), and allows for special purpose depository institutions (SPDIs) to serve crypto businesses. In 2021, the Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office announced plans to explore investing a portion of the state’s permanent funds directly in digital assets. The rationale included the potential for high returns, enhanced portfolio diversification (given the perceived low correlation with traditional assets), and a desire to foster innovation and economic development within the state. This initiative was notable for its direct approach and the explicit acknowledgment of digital assets as a viable long-term investment. However, such pioneering moves are often met with intense scrutiny and require robust justification regarding risk management and fiduciary compliance.
• New York City Pension Funds: In contrast to Wyoming’s direct approach, New York City’s pension funds have explored digital assets and blockchain technology through more indirect avenues. In 2022, the New York City Comptroller’s office indicated that its pension funds were evaluating investments in venture capital funds focused on blockchain technology companies, rather than direct holdings of volatile cryptocurrencies. This strategy allows the funds to gain exposure to the growth potential of the underlying technology and infrastructure of the digital asset ecosystem, while mitigating the direct price volatility risks associated with individual crypto assets. It represents a more cautious, innovation-focused approach that aligns with traditional venture capital investing within established fiduciary parameters.
• Other State and Local Initiatives: While direct investment in cryptocurrencies by public funds remains rare, other jurisdictions are exploring various touchpoints:
  • Florida’s Explorations: Florida has explored accepting certain cryptocurrencies for state tax payments, a move aimed at embracing digital innovation, though practical implementation details and regulatory hurdles remain significant.
  • Texas’s Bitcoin Mining Initiatives: Texas has attracted significant Bitcoin mining operations, leveraging its energy resources. While not direct investment by state funds, it reflects a governmental embrace of the economic potential of the digital asset industry.
  • Municipal Bonds on Blockchain: Several municipalities and public agencies are exploring issuing municipal bonds on blockchain platforms. This aims to leverage DLT for increased efficiency, transparency, and liquidity in the traditional bond market, rather than investing in novel digital assets themselves.

6.2 International Perspectives

The exploration of digital assets by public entities is not confined to the United States. Sovereign wealth funds and national treasuries globally are also navigating this space:

• El Salvador’s Bitcoin Adoption: In a highly controversial move, El Salvador adopted Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021 and has subsequently accumulated a significant reserve of the cryptocurrency. While an extreme example of governmental direct exposure, it serves as a real-world, albeit high-risk, case study of a nation utilizing its treasury funds for digital asset investment.
• Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): Many central banks worldwide, including the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the People’s Bank of China, are actively researching or piloting CBDCs. While not an investment by public funds in external digital assets, the development of CBDCs by central banks represents a profound shift in public finance’s engagement with digital currency technology.

6.3 Lessons Learned from Early Adopters

These early ventures, whether direct or indirect, offer critical lessons:

• Legislative Clarity is Key: Jurisdictions that have provided clear legal and regulatory frameworks (like Wyoming) have facilitated public entities’ ability to explore digital assets.
• Phased and Indirect Exposure: Many public funds prefer initial exposure through venture capital, public equity in crypto-related companies, or highly regulated digital asset-backed exchange-traded funds (ETFs) once available, as a way to gain exposure while managing direct volatility.
• Focus on Infrastructure: A recurring theme is the interest in the underlying blockchain technology and infrastructure companies rather than purely speculative crypto assets.
• Intense Public Scrutiny: Any public fund involvement with digital assets attracts considerable public and political scrutiny, underscoring the need for meticulous justification and transparent communication.

These case studies highlight the diverse approaches, motivations, and the complex risk-reward calculations involved when public funds consider venturing into the digital asset ecosystem. They underscore the necessity of a well-defined strategy, robust governance, and a clear understanding of fiduciary responsibilities.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Policy Recommendations for Responsible Innovation in Public Fund Management

Navigating the complex integration of digital assets into public fund management requires a proactive, principled, and adaptive approach. These policy recommendations aim to guide fiduciaries in embracing informed innovation while steadfastly upholding their foundational duties to the public.

7.1 Robust Governance and Risk Management Frameworks

Effective integration hinges on the establishment of comprehensive and explicit frameworks:

• Comprehensive Due Diligence and Risk Assessment: Before any allocation, conduct thorough, multi-dimensional evaluations of digital assets. This extends beyond market volatility to include operational risks (e.g., exchange solvency, smart contract vulnerabilities), counterparty risks (e.g., custody providers, trading platforms), technological risks (e.g., protocol integrity, cybersecurity threats), and regulatory risks (e.g., potential legal changes, enforcement actions). Both quantitative (e.g., historical volatility, correlation analysis) and qualitative (e.g., project team, technological innovation, use case viability) analyses are essential.
• Clear and Granular Investment Policy Statements (IPS): Existing IPS documents must be reviewed and updated to specifically address digital assets. These policies should define:
  • Acceptable asset classes within the digital asset space (e.g., specific cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, tokenized securities).
  • Strict allocation limits as a percentage of the total portfolio, starting small.
  • Eligible investment vehicles (e.g., direct holdings, indirectly via funds, ETFs).
  • Rigorous custody requirements and criteria for selecting institutional custodians.
  • Performance benchmarks, risk metrics, and rebalancing procedures specific to digital assets.
  • Procedures for ongoing monitoring and review of digital asset investments.
• Independent Oversight and Audit Mechanisms: Establish robust internal controls and external audit processes specifically designed for digital assets. Regular independent reviews of custody arrangements, cybersecurity protocols, and compliance with the IPS are critical. This ensures an additional layer of accountability and helps identify potential vulnerabilities before they manifest.

7.2 Enhancing Fiduciary Competence and Expertise

The nascent nature of digital assets necessitates a significant uplift in knowledge and expertise among fiduciaries and their teams:

• Mandatory Education and Training Programs: Provide continuous and in-depth education for investment committee members, staff, and oversight boards. Training should cover the fundamentals of blockchain technology, digital asset market dynamics, cybersecurity best practices, regulatory developments, and the specific application of fiduciary duties to this asset class. Understanding the technology is crucial for making informed, prudent decisions.
• Strategic Use of External Advisors: Engage highly specialized and reputable consultants, legal counsel, and asset managers with proven expertise in the digital asset space. These experts can provide invaluable insights into market trends, regulatory interpretations, technological advancements, and specialized risk management techniques, complementing internal capabilities. Due diligence on these advisors themselves is paramount.

7.3 Regulatory Engagement and Advocacy

Given the evolving regulatory landscape, proactive engagement with policymakers is vital:

• Collaborate with Regulators: Public fund fiduciaries should actively engage with federal, state, and international regulators to advocate for clearer, more consistent, and robust regulatory frameworks for digital assets. This includes participating in public comment periods and sharing practical insights from the perspective of institutional investors.
• Inter-Agency and Cross-Jurisdictional Coordination: Foster communication and intelligence sharing among public fund managers, treasurers, and state attorneys general regarding best practices, emerging risks, and legislative developments concerning digital assets. This collective knowledge can help shape more effective policies and provide a unified voice in policy discussions.

7.4 Phased and Prudent Integration Strategies

A cautious, incremental approach is advisable to manage the inherent uncertainties:

• Start Small and Indirect: Initial exposure to digital assets should be modest and preferably indirect. This could involve investing in private funds focused on blockchain infrastructure and technology companies, public equities of well-regulated crypto-related businesses, or highly regulated and diversified digital asset exchange-traded funds (ETFs) once they become widely available and deemed suitable under prevailing fiduciary standards. This allows for learning and adaptation without undue risk to the overall portfolio.
• Pilot Programs: Consider implementing small-scale pilot programs for specific use cases or investment approaches in a controlled environment, allowing for practical experience and data collection before broader adoption.
• Emphasis on Transparency: All decisions regarding digital asset integration, including rationale, risk assessments, and performance, must be communicated transparently to stakeholders, including legislators, beneficiaries, and the general public. This builds trust and facilitates informed public discourse.

7.5 Ethical and Societal Impact Assessment

Beyond financial metrics, fiduciaries must consider the broader implications of their investments:

• ESG Integration: Evaluate the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) implications of digital asset investments, particularly concerning energy consumption for certain cryptocurrencies. Prioritize investments in assets or protocols that align with sustainable practices or are actively transitioning to more environmentally friendly consensus mechanisms.
• Public Perception and Trust: Regularly assess and manage the potential impact of digital asset investments on public perception and trust. Decisions should not only be legally compliant and financially sound but also ethically defensible and reflective of the public’s long-term interests and values.

By systematically adopting these policy recommendations, public fund managers can prudently explore the opportunities presented by digital assets, ensuring that innovation is pursued responsibly, with unwavering commitment to their fiduciary duties and the long-term well-being of the public they serve.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Conclusion

The management of public funds represents one of the most significant and complex endeavors in public administration, inextricably linked to the fiscal health of communities and the financial security of their citizens. It demands an unyielding commitment to fundamental fiduciary duties, the disciplined application of prudent investment practices, and rigorous adherence to all applicable legal and regulatory mandates. The contemporary financial landscape, however, is not static; it is profoundly shaped by continuous technological innovation, most notably exemplified by the emergence of digital assets.

The integration of digital assets into public portfolios introduces a compelling array of new opportunities for portfolio diversification, inflation hedging, and potentially superior long-term returns. Yet, these opportunities are inextricably coupled with significant challenges, including extreme price volatility, a fragmented and evolving regulatory environment, heightened cybersecurity risks, and complex considerations for compliance with long-established fiduciary principles. The core tension lies in balancing the traditional imperative of capital preservation and stability with the potential for innovation and growth offered by a nascent asset class.

Public fund fiduciaries stand at a critical juncture. To responsibly navigate this evolving financial frontier, they must draw upon the enduring wisdom of traditional investment principles – robust diversification, stringent risk management, meticulous due diligence, and unwavering loyalty to beneficiaries. Concurrently, they must embrace informed innovation, which necessitates a deep commitment to continuous education, the strategic engagement of specialized expertise, and the development of highly granular and adaptable investment policies. A phased, cautious approach, beginning with indirect exposure and gradually expanding as regulatory clarity and market maturity develop, is paramount.

Ultimately, the ability of public funds to prudently explore and potentially benefit from the digital economy hinges on a thoughtful, research-driven, and highly governed approach. This approach must be firmly grounded in established fiduciary principles, ensuring that every decision is made with the best, long-term interests of the public and their beneficiaries at its forefront. The future outlook points to an ongoing evolution, where collaboration between regulators, technology innovators, and public fund managers will be crucial in shaping a stable and beneficial role for digital assets within the architecture of public finance.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• Akin, J. (2018). Public Wealth Maximization. University of Illinois Law Review, 2018(3). Retrieved from https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/public-wealth-maximization/
• Barton, R. (n.d.). The Legal Status of Digital Assets: Understanding Current Frameworks. Law Librarianship. Retrieved from https://lawlibrarianship.com/legal-status-of-digital-assets/
• Biden, J. R. (2022, March 9). Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets. The White House. Retrieved from https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/03/09/executive-order-on-ensuring-responsible-development-of-digital-assets/
• Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog. (2025, June 27). The Essential Investor Fiduciary Duties that Courts and Policymakers Often Miss. Retrieved from https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2025/06/27/the-essential-investor-fiduciary-duties-that-courts-and-policymakers-often-miss/
• Digital Finance News. (n.d.). Integrating Alternative Investments into 401(k) Plans: Implications for Fiduciary Duties, Risk Management, and Regulatory Compliance. Retrieved from https://digitalfinancenews.com/research-reports/integrating-alternative-investments-into-401k-plans-implications-for-fiduciary-duties-risk-management-and-regulatory-compliance/
• Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. (2023, March 1). Fiduciary Duties of Public Pension Systems and Registered Investment Advisors. Retrieved from https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/03/01/fiduciary-duties-of-public-pension-systems-and-registered-investment-advisors/
• Lizarraga, J. (2022, November 16). Digital Assets: Putting Investors First. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Speech at Brooklyn Law School. Retrieved from https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/lizarraga-brooklyn-law-school-20221116
• Sjögren, M., & Nordström, J. (2025). The Influence of Ethical, Sustainable, and Environmental Beliefs on Individual Cryptocurrency Participation in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. Journal of Business Ethics. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-025-06051-4
• Uniform Prudent Investor Act. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Prudent_Investor_Act
• Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Prudent_Management_of_Institutional_Funds_Act
• Washington State Department of Financial Institutions. (2023, June 23). Virtual Currency, Cryptocurrency, and Digital Assets Information for Consumers. Retrieved from https://dfi.wa.gov/consumers/virtual-currency