Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor has outlined a five-part digital-asset policy framework centered on the rights to create, issue, custody, transfer and use digital assets. In his September 26 policy essay, Saylor described the framework as a “bill of digital rights,” arguing that artificial intelligence will increase economic productivity and require faster, cheaper capital formation. The proposal is a policy blueprint rather than legislation introduced in Congress, and its targets include enabling 10 million new companies to raise capital and eventually building what Saylor believes could become a $100 trillion digital-asset industry.
The five rights cover the ability to develop digital assets and financial instruments, issue them to finance productive activity, custody them directly or through a chosen provider, transfer them between wallets and institutions, and use them for spending, investment, income or collateral. Saylor’s central argument is that digital ownership has limited economic value if regulation prevents owners from moving or using the underlying assets. That position intersects with the existing U.S. securities framework, under which tokenized stocks remain subject to securities regulation and custody requirements rather than acquiring a different legal status merely because they move onchain.
Tokenization and Banking Sit at the Center
Saylor argues that tokenization could lower the cost and complexity of raising capital while giving investors greater control over tokenized securities. He favors direct ownership, transferable assets and competition among custody and credit providers rather than tokenization confined to closed intermediary networks. His 10 million-company objective is an ambition for expanded capital formation, not a projection supported by demonstrated issuance demand. Existing institutional experiments, including tokenized bond settlement between central banks and commercial banks, show that blockchain-based securities infrastructure is developing, but they do not establish adoption at the scale Saylor describes.
Bitcoin banking is another pillar. Saylor wants banks to custody BTC and extend credit against it under rules that distinguish customer custody, collateralized lending and proprietary holdings. He specifically criticized the Basel Framework’s treatment of Group 2b cryptoassets, which applies a 1,250% risk weight designed to require minimum risk-based capital at least equal to the exposure. That treatment is narrower than a blanket 1,250% charge on all Bitcoin-related banking services, and national regulators determine how Basel standards enter domestic prudential regimes.
The proposal also aligns with efforts to make custodied Bitcoin economically usable rather than leaving it dormant. Structures such as institutional Bitcoin accounts designed for collateralized lending and yield strategies illustrate that direction. Those products demonstrate infrastructure availability, however, rather than proving that banks will adopt Saylor’s preferred regulatory model or materially expand Bitcoin-backed credit.
Privacy, Payments and Regulatory Authority
Saylor separately proposes portable compliance credentials, allowing customers to verify identity once and reuse trusted information across providers with permission. He also favors higher reporting thresholds for routine lawful transactions and a meaningful tax de minimis exemption for everyday digital-asset payments. These are separate proposals: financial-reporting thresholds govern when transactions trigger reporting obligations, while a tax de minimis rule would address gain-or-loss calculations on qualifying purchases.
On regulatory strategy, Saylor said the SEC, CFTC, Treasury, banking regulators and White House could make substantial changes using existing authority over the next two years, while Congress would remain necessary where legislation is required. He also criticized the recent CLARITY framework as too restrictive. That position comes after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on September 15, leaving immediate market-structure work more dependent on agency action. Saylor’s framework represents his preferred policy direction, not an adopted federal regulatory program.
The next concrete milestones will therefore come from regulators rather than from the proposal itself. SEC tokenization rules, banking treatment of digital assets, tax legislation and any renewed congressional market-structure effort will determine whether elements of Saylor’s five-right framework move from advocacy into enforceable U.S. policy.
