A basic postulate of the civil transfer and exchange of digital assets consists in the rule according to which their transfer on the basis of a transaction is not subject to agreement with the obligated party (Article 141.1(3) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). However, the interpretation of this legal provision gives rise to certain difficulties in both doctrine and practice. Moreover, the very idea of the universalism of the concept of free (in the context of the indifference of the opinion of the debtor or other obligated party) circulation of digital rights can be subject to criticism. The present study sets out to establish the legal significance of this concept in primary terms of the (in)expediency of giving it an unconditional character. For this purpose, a comprehensive analysis of the content of the norm of Article 141.1(3) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (in conjunction with other legislative provisions regarding the transfer of property rights and the functioning of information systems) is carried out on the basis of general scientific (formal and dialectical logic) and specific scientific (legal-dogmatic, comparative legal, interpretation of legal norms) methods along with the rules of information systems developed by individual operators. The presented analysis of the general meaning and limitations of the scope of the norm of Article 141.1(3) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation reveals the critical problem of the (un) reasonableness of its qualification. The inadequacy of the differentiation of the modes of transfer of digital rights (in terms of taking into account the opinion of the obligated person) based on the legal and factual basis (transaction or occurrence of circumstances provided for by law) consists in the impossibility of demonstrating that the norm under study cannot abrogate the need to obtain the consent of subjects other than the person obligated under the digital right. the absence of indisputable factors for qualifying the rule as imperative is demonstrated in terms of the exercise and disposal of digital rights solely in the information system without recourse to a third party and not determining the inadmissibility of introducing a permit-based procedure. since the existence of political and legal grounds for refusing to perceive the concept of free transfer of digital rights as unconditional must be acknowledged, the fundamental acceptability of decentralized regulation of issues of coordinating the conclusion of a transaction with an obligated party is confirmed. The secondary nature of local regulation of the conditions for the circulation of digital rights in the rules of the information system is substantiated in terms of necessity for such conditions to be determined by the parties to the agreement).