Michael Saylor said the digital assets industry should pursue supportive rules from regulators instead of accepting the final CLARITY compromise, arguing that broad customer adoption offers stronger protection than new legislation. In a post on X, he proposed using 2027 and 2028 to deploy better financial products at scale, saying that current law already allows substantial opportunities for the sector. He also cautioned that a law can make restrictions as durable as it makes rights.

Concerns Over the CLARITY Compromise

In a post on X, Saylor addressed the September CLARITY compromise on digital asset market structure, writing that the industry is "better off moving forward with supportive rules" from regulators.

As drafted, the compromise would have restricted covered providers from paying customers simply for holding payment stablecoins, while still allowing rewards for qualifying activity. It would also have directed the Treasury Department to restrict certain rewards following findings of substantial, detrimental deposit transfers from community banks.

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) September 19, 2026

Saylor drew a distinction on the question, saying that protecting a bank from a liquidity crisis and protecting it "from a better competitor are different objectives." Consumers, he added, should share in the savings when technology lowers costs.

The GENIUS Act, the federal stablecoin statute, already restricts issuer-paid stablecoin interest and yield, subject to its effective-date provisions. Saylor noted that the CLARITY setback leaves that law intact, framing the open question as whether to layer additional restrictions onto providers and rewards.

Agency Actions Under Existing Authority

Saylor wrote that "the administration is already opening that path." On September 17, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provided conditional relief for onchain trading of certain tokenized stocks, equities represented as blockchain tokens, using its existing authority. Chairman Paul Atkins described following temporary relief with durable rulemaking, and investor protections and fraud prohibitions remain in place.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Michael Selig supported CLARITY but committed to using existing authority if the bill stalled. He directed staff to explore rules for leveraged or margined crypto trading through regulated markets, and staff will also work with developers on lawful onchain finance. Saylor cited both actions as examples of agency support.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has linked stablecoin implementation with innovation, American growth, and the dollar's global role. Saylor also said the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the federal banking regulator, has eased supervisory barriers to bank crypto custody, and he noted that CLARITY preserved existing SEC exemptive authority. In his words, "substantial opportunities already exist under current law."

Adoption as a Long-Term Safeguard

Saylor identified the strongest argument for CLARITY as protection from a future hostile administration. He responded that "no statute removes politics from regulation," since a future administration would still make implementation and enforcement decisions. The industry, he argued, therefore needs a public that makes hostility costly.

To that end, he proposed a goal of 50 million satisfied users, describing American voters using cheaper payments, Bitcoin access, and transparent income products. "Adoption raises the political cost of reversal," he wrote, adding that sound rulemaking strengthens the legal foundation.

Saylor said 2027 and 2028 should focus on scaling useful products and turning temporary relief into durable rules. Whether the SEC's conditional relief translates into durable rulemaking, and where the CFTC staff's exploration leads, are the near-term markers for that agenda. His post grouped the sector into digital capital, credit, equity, exchanges, and currency, citing BTC, STRC, MSTR, COIN, and USDC as examples. He said banks should compete on custody, payments, and credit against digital assets.

He closed the post with a single line: "The best protection for digital innovation is a public that benefits from it."

Source: Blockonomi