Strategy, recognized as the world’s largest Bitcoin treasury company, has formally requested that MSCI withdraw its latest proposal to exclude digital asset treasury firms from key stock indices. The company claimed that this measure could have substantial consequences for capital flows into affected stocks and raised concerns about the broader impact on the market.
MSCI’s Proposal and Its Implications
MSCI, a leading global index provider whose indices are widely followed by investment funds, is considering a plan that would remove companies classified as non-operating from its Global Investable Markets Indexes. Under the proposal, firms primarily holding digital assets or other financial investments, rather than operating active businesses, could be excluded. Companies such as Strategy, Metaplanet, and an entity focused on uranium holdings could be directly impacted by this revision.
The move aims to ensure MSCI’s indices remain concentrated on businesses with ongoing commercial operations, reflecting what the index provider describes as the intent to maintain a focus on “real operating activity.”
JPMorgan analysts previously suggested that removing firms like Strategy from major indices could trigger significant outflows, with billions of dollars potentially at risk as passive funds rebalance their portfolios.
ETH
SOL
BSC
ROBINHOOD
USDT
AAPL| Company | Affected by Proposal | Primary Asset Holdings |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy | Yes | Bitcoin |
| Metaplanet | Yes | Bitcoin |
| Uranium-focused firm | Yes | Uranium |
Mini dictionary: MSCI, or Morgan Stanley Capital International, is a global provider of financial market indices used to benchmark the performance of markets and investment funds worldwide.
Strategy’s Case Against Exclusion
Strategy took a strong stance against the proposal, stating that it singles out digital asset treasury firms and closely resembles a plan previously considered and dropped by MSCI in 2025, albeit with altered wording. The company laid out four main objections, including the risk of deviating from established accounting principles and undermining MSCI’s commitment to neutrality.
Citing U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidance, Strategy emphasized that its Bitcoin holdings are accounted for as an operating segment, not simply as passive assets. The company argued that this structure aligns with financial reporting standards and should be recognized accordingly.
Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, called for MSCI to reflect market conditions rather than make judgments on the nature of companies. CEO Phong Le noted that other index providers such as S&P, FTSE, Bloomberg, Nasdaq, and ICE continue to include digital asset treasury businesses, differentiating MSCI’s approach.
Strategy contends that U.S. GAAP and SEC guidance treat Bitcoin as an operating segment and urges MSCI to maintain neutrality, paralleling other prominent index providers.
Potential Market Impact and Next Steps
Last year, JPMorgan analysts indicated that exclusion from MSCI’s indices could drive up to $9 billion in total outflows across all impacted indices, as investment funds rebalance away from affected stocks. The report also suggested that other major indices, such as LSEG’s Russell index and Nasdaq, might follow MSCI’s decision, amplifying the effect.
Strategy, however, offered a different perspective, saying that funds tracking MSCI indices represent about 3% of its outstanding shares, a figure equivalent to around 60% of a typical trading day’s volume. The company downplayed the risk of lasting market disruption from potential outflows.
Currently, digital asset treasury firms collectively hold about $3 billion in crypto assets, a significant decrease from a peak exceeding $8 billion during the last bull market cycle.
JPMorgan analysts highlighted that dropping these firms from major indices could further reduce trading liquidity and eventually make their stocks less appealing to a wider pool of investors.
Feedback on MSCI’s proposal remains open until the end of September, with any changes set to become effective on December 1 if adopted.
Digital asset treasury firms have yet to publicly outline further actions if MSCI moves forward with the current proposal as written, leaving the industry waiting for the next round of regulatory developments.
