- Published on
Saylor outlines ‘bill of digital rights’ to help build prosperity in future economy
- Authors
- Name
- DeepHorus
Michael Saylor, co-founder and executive chairman of Strategy, has proposed a “bill of digital rights” for an economy shaped by artificial intelligence and digital assets. In an essay posted on X on Saturday, the executive argued that policy should expand what people and companies can create, own, transfer and do with digital value. His central ambition is to “enable 10 million new companies to raise capital,” a goal tied to the idea that faster business formation could offset disruption from automation. The proposal frames digital-asset rules not as a narrow Bitcoin issue, but as infrastructure for future entrepreneurship and investment.
Saylor’s argument starts from the premise that artificial intelligence will increase production while also automating jobs and making some existing products obsolete. In that environment, he wrote, prosperity will depend on society’s ability to create businesses and economic opportunities more quickly. He also warned that protecting incumbent business models while making it difficult for their successors to obtain financing would leave the economy unprepared for technological change. These claims position digital capital markets as a potential release valve for AI-driven productivity.
The proposed framework contains five fundamental freedoms. The first is the freedom to create new digital assets, while the second is the right to issue those assets to markets to finance businesses and boost productivity. Saylor said these rights should belong to both individuals and companies rather than being limited to regulated institutions. His reasoning is straightforward: an asset’s economic value depends partly on the range of useful actions its owner is permitted to take.
The remaining three rights concern custody, movement and practical use. People and businesses should be able to hold digital assets or select a custodian, transfer them among people, companies, wallets and service providers, and use them to spend, invest, generate income or borrow. Restricting those capabilities, Saylor argued, would restrict an asset’s usefulness and, by extension, its economic potential. The framework is designed to make digital assets usable across the full lifecycle of a modern financial transaction.
To turn those principles into a market, Saylor said digital dollars should be free to compete on yield and settle or circulate at “the speed of light.” Banks, financial technology companies and technology platforms should be able to offer such dollars through the devices and applications people already use. Where existing law blocks those activities, he added, “the law should change.” The proposal therefore calls for both a rights-based policy framework and practical distribution through familiar consumer and technology channels.
The essay arrived as Strategy resumed buying Bitcoin after a two-week pause. According to Cointelegraph, the company acquired 950 BTC for $75.7 million, at an average price of $79,670 per coin, lifting its holdings to 846,000 BTC. The reported total cost was about $63.8 billion, or an average of $75,416 per Bitcoin, while BTC traded near $84,523 at publication. That renewed accumulation gave the policy proposal an immediate corporate context, though the purchases themselves were a separate capital-allocation decision.
The immediate impact of Saylor’s plan is likely to be agenda-setting rather than legislative. It gives policymakers, cryptocurrency advocates and financial institutions a concise vocabulary for debating digital ownership, issuance, custody, transfer and use, while elevating capital formation as a test of whether AI’s benefits will reach society broadly. Critics could question whether five broad rights are sufficient without enforcement, consumer protection, privacy or systemic-risk safeguards, details not specified in the source material. Saylor’s goal of 10 million newly capitalizable companies is also a long-range aspiration rather than a forecast, but his essay is likely to fuel further debate over whether regulation should enable new competitors or protect entrenched business models.
