Executive Chairman of Strategy Michael Saylor has proposed revising the regulatory approach to banking operations with Bitcoin. In an analytical article dated September 26, he explored a model where financial institutions could hold BTC on behalf of clients and issue loans secured by these assets. With this mechanism, the Bitcoin owner is not required to sell it to obtain borrowed funds: the coins remain as collateral, and the bank assumes the risks associated with their custody and potential value changes. Saylor also highlights the option of choosing between self-custody and professional custodial services as one of the key rights of a digital asset owner. In a broader context, he suggests considering Bitcoin not only as a store of value but also as an asset around which traditional financial services can be developed.
Special attention in the proposal is given to capital requirements, accounting, and banking supervision. Saylor believes that different operations with Bitcoin should be assessed based on their specific economic nature and associated risks. As an example, he cites the 1,250% risk weight provided by Basel rules for a certain category of crypto-assets in group 2b. This figure determines the amount of capital a bank needs to account for to cover the corresponding risk and is not a tax or fee of 1,250% of the loan amount. Moreover, the specified classification pertains to specific banking obligations and does not imply the automatic application of identical requirements to all BTC custody or collateralized loan operations. Saylor's proposed approach suggests that requirements should consider the characteristics of the specific service, the need for collateral assessment, client asset protection, and the financial institution's ability to cover potential losses.
In his concept, Saylor also considers the possibility of using digital assets by insurance companies and expanding the range of financial products related to Bitcoin. However, the implementation of such models depends not only on changes in regulatory requirements but also on the decisions of banks and other financial organizations themselves. For the lender, collateral in the form of BTC is associated with specific risks, including sharp changes in its market value, the need for collateral control, and procedures for managing potential losses. For the client, the key distinction remains the ability to obtain financing without the immediate sale of the pledged asset, although insufficient collateral may lead to additional requirements from the lender. Thus, Saylor's proposal focuses on creating rules for banking custody and lending against digital assets, while the specific conditions of such services will depend on supervisory requirements, product structures, and risk management practices.
Related articles
