In an era marked by rising inflation, Bitcoin was framed as a radical experiment in digital cash. However, as the global economic landscape has shifted, the narrative around BTC has changed. It is now being discussed as a modern savings tool designed for a world where traditional savings are steadily losing their purchasing power.
Normalisation Of Bitcoin As A Savings Asset
A common framing of Bitcoin today is that it is a savings technology, digital gold, and something to hold, rather than use. According to Ben SAN’s post on X, that framing has become incomplete and ultimately wrong. This is because BTC is not meant to sit alongside fiat as another savings vehicle, but to replace fiat as a monetary base and a financial base that cannot be used or function as money.
However, for BTC to operate as a form of finance, it has to be usable at scale. That usability at scale implies execution, settlement abstraction, fast interactions, and cost-efficient transactions. BTC layer 1 is designed for finality and neutrality, not to satisfy these requirements, and it shouldn’t be.
This is why BTC needs layer 2s to operate as money. “Once you accept that Bitcoin needs L2s to be usable as money, you stop asking whether alts are competing with Bitcoin and start asking whether they are serving Bitcoin,” the expert stated. If acceptance of altcoins is ever possible in the BTC-first community, it won’t come from alternative monetary assets. Instead, the acceptance of the altcoins will only come from systems that keep BTC as the unit of account and native asset, while extending its usability crucially without weakening its guarantees.
In these cases, auxiliary tokens may be introduced, but only where BTC is structurally incapable of performing the required coordination or incentive functions around expressiveness and yield. Furthermore, any non-BTC asset that has a legitimate chance of being accepted within the community will earn that legitimacy by filling those gaps in a way BTC itself cannot fulfill.
History Shows What Happens After These Bitcoin Buys
Crypto analyst Mattertrades highlighted that Bitcoin is trading above the weekly resistance, and the path is slow and clear. This setup is a result of Michael Saylor stepping in this week with his largest purchase since July, acquiring $1.5 billion worth of BTC. The last time he did this, BTC surged to $126,000.
At the same time, the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI)-related news for Strategy was very bullish, and it actually attracted more buyers. Mattertrades concluded that this is how a bullish case quietly forms. If Saylor’s purchases bring in more buyers, reflexivity will begin because when he starts accumulating such large amounts again, other players will follow suit.
Strategy added to its bitcoin treasury for a third straight week, acquiring 13,627 BTC for roughly $1.25 billion at an average price of $91,519 per coin, according to an SEC filing dated January 12.
The purchases were made between January 5 and January 11 and funded through the company’s at-the-market offering program, which included sales of Class A common stock (MSTR) and its 10.00% Series A perpetual preferred stock, Stretch (STRC).
The sales generated about $1.2 billion in net proceeds, with $1.1 billion coming from common stock and $119 million from preferred equity.
The latest buy brings Strategy’s total bitcoin holdings to 687,410 BTC, acquired for an aggregate cost of $51.8 billion at an average purchase price of $75,353 per bitcoin.
At current prices, the stash is worth roughly $62 billion.
Last week, Strategy disclosed another sizable bitcoin purchase, acquiring 1,286 BTC for about $116 million in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The buys, made between late December and early January, lifted the company’s total holdings to 673,783 BTC at the time, funded through Class A share sales under its at-the-market program.
Strategy also increased its U.S. dollar reserves last week to $2.25 billion to support preferred dividends and debt obligations, while reporting an average bitcoin cost basis of roughly $75,000 per coin.
Despite bitcoin rebounding above $90,000 to start 2026, the firm recorded a $17.44 billion unrealized loss in the fourth quarter of 2025 after prices fell sharply from October highs.
Strategy’s recent MSCI drama
Over the past several months, Strategy has been at the center of attention tied to its inclusion in MSCI’s global equity indexes due to its massive Bitcoin treasury strategy.
MSCI — one of the world’s most influential index providers — launched a review in late 2025 to consider whether companies with more than ~50 % of assets in digital assets (so-called Digital Asset Treasury Companies, or DATCOs) should remain in major benchmarks like the MSCI World and MSCI USA indexes.
If excluded, passive funds tracking these indexes could be forced to sell billions of dollars of MSTR shares, with estimates suggesting up to ~$2.8 billion in outflows from MSCI-linked funds alone and even more if other providers followed suit. Analysts from JPMorgan and TD Cowen estimated that exclusion from these indices could threaten billions in additional market value on top of that.
Strategy’s stock endured some declines and heightened risk-off sentiment as markets priced in the threat of index exclusion, with its share price dropping sharply in late 2025 amid these concerns.
Company leadership, including Michael Saylor, publicly defended its positioning as a legitimate operating company rather than a passive fund, engaging with MSCI during the consultation and stressing its enterprise operations alongside Bitcoin holdings.
In a statement on X, Saylor said that the company is “not a fund, not a trust, and not a holding company.” He described the firm as a publicly traded operating company with a $500 million software business and a unique treasury strategy that uses Bitcoin as productive capital.
In early January 2026, MSCI announced it would not implement proposed exclusions of DATCOs from its indexes at this time, effectively postponing any removal for the upcoming February 2026 review. This decision was widely interpreted as short-term relief for Strategy — lifting some selling pressure and leading to a 4 %–6 % rise in MSTR stock as investors welcomed the reprieve.
However, MSCI also signaled a broader consultation on how to classify non-operating companies, indicating that similar debates could resurface later in 2026.
Despite all this buying, the price of bitcoin has been little-changed over the last couple of months. Bitcoin has bounced around the $90,000 range and is currently trading at $90,555.
Shares of Strategy ($MSTR) surged as much as 7% earlier today after global index provider MSCI concluded its long-running review of digital asset treasury companies and opted not to exclude them from its flagship equity indexes — at least for now.
$MSTR was trading above $170 per share in early market trading, before paring gains as bitcoin pulled back into the low $91,000 range.
By midday, $MSTR shares had dipped to around $165, up only 4%, tracking weakness in the broader crypto market but still holding a solid advance on the day.
The rally followed confirmation from MSCI that it will maintain the current treatment of digital asset treasury companies (DATCOs), including Strategy, meaning firms already included in MSCI indexes will remain eligible so long as they continue to meet existing requirements.
The decision alleviated months of uncertainty that had weighed on Strategy’s stock and fueled concerns over forced selling tied to index rebalancing.
MSCI had been reviewing whether companies holding a majority of their assets in bitcoin or other digital assets should be classified as “investment-oriented” entities rather than operating companies — a shift that would have rendered them ineligible for inclusion in widely tracked benchmarks such as the MSCI All Country World Index and MSCI Emerging Markets Index.
That proposal sparked fierce pushback from Strategy and the broader bitcoin industry. Strategy argued that excluding companies based solely on balance sheet composition was arbitrary and undermined index neutrality.
Industry groups warned that removing DATCOs could trigger billions of dollars in passive outflows, destabilizing both equity and crypto markets.
Analysts had estimated that Strategy alone could have faced as much as $2.8 billion in forced selling if MSCI proceeded with exclusion, with broader selloffs across bitcoin treasury firms potentially far larger. MSCI’s decision effectively defuses that immediate risk.
$MSTR’s conditional regulatory relief
Still, the outcome was not an unqualified win. MSCI acknowledged concerns from institutional investors that some digital asset-heavy firms resemble investment funds and said further research is needed to distinguish between operating companies and investment-oriented entities.
As part of its interim approach, MSCI said it will not increase index weightings to reflect new share issuance by DATCOs — a move that could limit Strategy’s ability to expand its index footprint as it issues equity to buy more bitcoin.
MSCI also signaled that exclusion remains a possibility in the future, noting that its indices are designed to track operating companies and that a broader consultation on non-operating firms is forthcoming.
For now, markets focused on the relief. Strategy ($MSTR), which holds nearly $63 billion worth of bitcoin and remains the largest publicly traded corporate holder, saw immediate buying interest as the specter of index removal faded.
At the time of writing, bitcoin was trading in the low $91,000 range.
In a major development for Bitcoin-focused corporations and the broader digital asset ecosystem, global index provider MSCI has concluded its review of digital asset treasury companies (DATCOs) and decided against excluding them from its flagship indexes.
MSCI said the current treatment of affected companies will remain unchanged for now, meaning DATCOs already included in MSCI indexes will stay included as long as they continue to meet existing eligibility requirements.
The index provider acknowledged feedback from institutional investors expressing concern that some digital asset treasury companies resemble investment funds, which are typically excluded from its indexes.
At the same time, MSCI said distinguishing between investment-oriented entities and operating companies that hold digital assets as part of their core business requires further research and market input.
As a result, MSCI said it plans to launch a broader consultation on the treatment of non-operating companies, while deferring any exclusions, additions, or size-related changes for DATCOs in the interim, according to the company announcement.
JUST IN: MSCI decides to NOT exclude Michael Saylor's Strategy and other Bitcoin treasury companies from its indexes. pic.twitter.com/OTnQgG2jca
The move reverses fears that have swirled in financial and crypto markets for months that firms — like Strategy — holding a majority of their assets in Bitcoin and other digital assets could be stripped from widely tracked global equity benchmarks like the MSCI All Country World and Emerging Markets indexes.
The proposal, first announced by MSCI late last year, would have effectively classified DATCOs — public companies with greater than 50 % of assets in digital assets — as fund-like entities rather than operating companies, and thus ineligible for inclusion in its core indices.
That framework had ignited fierce criticism from industry players and advocates.
Strategy and bitcoin industry pushback against MSCI
Strategy — the largest publicly traded Bitcoin treasury company — and other DATCOs had been at the center of the debate.
Strategy formally urged MSCI to scrap the proposal, arguing that excluding firms based on asset composition alone would be “misguided,” “arbitrary,” and could destabilize index neutrality.
In an open letter to the MSCI Equity Index Committee, Strategy stressed that DATCOs are operating companies, not passive funds, and should not be judged solely on balance sheet Bitcoin holdings.
Industry coalitions such as Bitcoin For Corporations also mobilized support, framing the move as discriminatory and warning that exclusion could trigger billions in passive outflows and broader market dislocations.
Analysts had projected potential capital flight of up to $2.8 billion from Strategy alone if MSCI followed through with exclusion, with broader estimates of forced selloffs across crypto treasuries ranging much higher.
The decision ends that uncertainty. It preserves the status of DATCOs within MSCI’s suite of indexes and avoids triggering index-linked passive selling that had loomed as a structural market risk.
Market reaction was swift: shares of digital asset heavyweights including Strategy saw immediate relief buying.
Shares of MSTR jumped over 7% after the news broke in after hours trading.
Michael Saylor’s Strategy, the Tysons Corner, Virginia-based firm formerly known as MicroStrategy, kicked off the new year with another large Bitcoin acquisition, buying 1,286 BTC for approximately $116 million, according to a Monday filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The purchase, made between December 29, 2025, and January 4, 2026, boosts the company’s Bitcoin holdings to 673,783 BTC, valued at around $62.7 billion at current prices.
The latest buy was funded entirely through the proceeds of MSTR Class A stock sales under the company’s at-the-market (ATM) program. The company sold nearly 2 million shares, generating $312.2 million in net proceeds.
The acquisition also coincides with the firm increasing its U.S. dollar reserve to $2.25 billion, up from $1.44 billion in December, intended to support dividend payments on preferred shares and interest obligations on outstanding debt.
The average price for the recent purchase was $90,391 per Bitcoin, with a small portion — 3 BTC — acquired in the final days of 2025 at $88,210 each.
Overall, Strategy’s Bitcoin portfolio was accumulated at an average cost basis of $75,026 per coin, reflecting total expenditures of $50.55 billion.
Despite the gains in 2026, the company reported a $17.44 billion unrealized loss on its digital assets in the fourth quarter of 2025, largely due to Bitcoin sliding from its October high of $126,000.
Bitcoin’s price surpassed $90,000 at the start of the year, partly buoyed by geopolitical tensions in the U.S.-Venezuela corridor and ongoing market optimism. As of Monday, BTC traded near $93,000, representing a roughly 6% gain year-to-date.
The move underscores the company’s continued commitment to its Bitcoin-first treasury model. Michael Saylor, co-founder and executive chairman, signaled the purchase on Sunday via X posting the firm’s Bitcoin portfolio with the caption, “Orange or Green?”
This weekly acquisition pattern has become a hallmark of Strategy’s approach to building its bitcoin holdings over time.
Strategy’s MSCI delisting possibility
However, the firm faces ongoing challenges beyond market volatility. Strategy could soon be removed from the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) global indices, which proposed last October that companies with 50% or more of assets in digital currencies resemble investment funds and may be excluded.
A potential MSCI delisting could trigger $2.8 billion in stock outflows, according to executives, with further impacts possible across other indexes, including the Nasdaq 100 and Russell benchmarks. Analysts from JPMorgan and TD Cowen estimate that exclusion from these indices could threaten billions in additional market value.
In December, Strategy submitted a formal response to MSCI’s consultation. The company called the threshold “misguided” and warned it could have “profoundly harmful consequences” for investors and the broader digital asset industry.
Earlier in November, Saylor pushed back on media reports warning that Strategy could face billions in passive outflows if MSCI did follow through with its decision.
In a statement on X, Saylor said that the company is “not a fund, not a trust, and not a holding company.” He described the firm as a publicly traded operating company with a $500 million software business and a unique treasury strategy that uses Bitcoin as productive capital.
Despite these pressures, Strategy’s aggressive accumulation of Bitcoin has influenced other publicly traded firms.
Tokyo-listed Metaplanet, for instance, has now become the fourth-largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, with 35,102 coins valued at roughly $3.27 billion.
Strategy’s USD reserve and stock sale-driven purchases illustrate a carefully managed, albeit high-risk, strategy of maintaining liquidity while expanding its digital asset holdings. The company has used the reserve to bolster its financial footing amid market swings, aiming to ensure operational continuity and investor confidence.
At the time of writing, bitcoin is dropping to below $92,000.
In a move that could shape corporate Bitcoin adoption, index provider MSCI is set to decide whether to exclude companies holding significant Bitcoin reserves from its global benchmarks. The outcome, due January 15, may influence billions in forced selling and set precedents for how Wall Street views Bitcoin as a treasury asset.
MSCI Inc., a New York-based publicly traded company listed on the NYSE with a market capitalization of $43.76 billion and a stock price of $565.68 as of January 2, is a key player in the investment world. It curates over 246,000 equity indexes daily, with more than $18.3 trillion in assets under management benchmarked to them. These indices serve as blueprints for funds and portfolios, helping investors gain exposure to specific market segments.
Unlike the NASDAQ, which operates as both a stock exchange where companies list and trade and a composite index tracking those listings, MSCI focuses solely on index creation. The S&P 500, managed by S&P Dow Jones Indices, is similarly an index but targets the 500 largest U.S. companies by market cap. MSCI’s offerings, such as the MSCI World Index covering developed markets, provide broader global and thematic coverage, influencing trillions in investment decisions.
The issue began on October 10, 2025, when MSCI issued a consultation proposal to exclude companies with 50% or more of their assets in digital assets like Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies from its Global Investable Market Indexes. The rationale: such firms operate more like funds than traditional businesses. The proposal named 39 companies, including Bitcoin holders like Strategy and Metaplanet. The announcement triggered an immediate market reaction, with Bitcoin experiencing a sharp intraday plunge of roughly $12,000 on the same day, marking the start of a broader price correction.
Broader awareness grew in late November 2025, when JPMorgan analysts highlighted the risks in a report, estimating $2.8 billion in outflows from Strategy alone and up to $8.8 billion if other index providers followed suit. This may have amplified selling pressure on affected stocks and contributed to Bitcoin’s ongoing pullback amid a broader market downturn. Estimates of total forced selling, if implemented, range from $10 billion to $15 billion over a year, per Bitcoin for Corporations (BFC) analysis.
The consultation period, open for stakeholder feedback, closed on December 31, 2025. BFC, a coalition accelerating corporate Bitcoin adoption, mobilized quickly. They launched a website detailing the proposal’s flaws, including a technical appendix outlining potential market impacts. BFC drafted a letter opposing the change, gathering over 1,500 signatures in two weeks and delivering it to MSCI on December 30. Eight of the 39 affected companies are BFC members.
After initial outreach, BFC held a call with MSCI’s head of research and leadership. “We had a very constructive conversation,” said George Mekhail, BFC’s executive director. “I think they were very much still in a listening and learning posture. I think a lot of this just really has to do with a lack of education and understanding of Bitcoin itself, as well as these Bitcoin treasury companies and the significance of their operating businesses.”
Mekhail noted the proposal appeared driven by genuine analytical concerns rather than malice, triggered by Metaplanet’s recent preferred share issuance, not Strategy’s larger holdings. A key gap: MSCI made no distinction between Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, treating all digital assets alike. This has fostered temporary alignment between Bitcoin advocates and the broader crypto sector in opposition, highlighting an ongoing education gap between the Bitcoin industry and Wall Street institutions.
Next, MSCI announces its decision on January 15, 2026. If approved, exclusions take effect February 1. Mekhail outlined three scenarios: implementation (worst case, forcing sales), a delay for further review (most likely, per his assessment), or full withdrawal (best case). Polymarket bettors currently give a 77% chance of Strategy’s delisting from MSCI by March 31.
Most financial fallout would hit Strategy, which holds the vast majority of affected Bitcoin treasuries. Founder Michael Saylor’s firm has engaged MSCI directly, issuing its own letter and working behind the scenes. Other opposition includes letters from Strive Asset Management and investor Bill Miller.
Industry pushback has been robust and visible, with no major groups publicly supporting the proposal. This asymmetry underscores Bitcoin’s organized, motivated constituency versus dispersed critics, echoing dynamics in recent political shifts like the 2024 U.S. election.
A withdrawal would boost corporate Bitcoin strategies; implementation could deter treasuries. As Mekhail put it, “The most bullish outcome is that they take it to heart and they withdraw the proposal.” The decision tests Wall Street’s adaptation to Bitcoin’s role in balance sheets.
Bitcoin Magazine is wholly owned by BTC Inc., which operates Bitcoin For Corporations, a platform focused on corporate adoption of Bitcoin. BFChas a variety of relationships with Bitcoin businesses, including some of those mentioned in this article.
A major rule change is being considered by MSCI, one of the most influential index providers in global markets. If adopted, it would materially alter how public companies that hold digital assets—particularly Bitcoin—are classified and included in major equity indexes.
For companies, investors, asset managers, and anyone who depends on index-based benchmarks, this proposal raises fundamental questions about how markets define operating businesses and what role balance sheets should play in index eligibility.
Join the call for MSCI to withdraw its digital asset exclusion rule.
Here’s what’s at stake—and why it matters.
1. MSCI Is Proposing a New 50% Balance-Sheet Threshold
At the center of the proposal is a simple rule:
If digital assets make up 50% or more of a company’s total assets, that company would be excluded from MSCI’s Global Investable Market Indexes.
MSCI’s rationale is that crossing this threshold allegedly changes the company’s “primary business,” making it more fund-like rather than operational.
This single ratio would override all other indicators of what the company actually does.
2. The Proposal Misclassifies Operating Companies as Investment Funds
The core objection is straightforward: holding Bitcoin on a balance sheet does not transform an operating company into an investment fund.
Operating companies generate revenue from products and services
They employ people, invest in R&D, and serve customers
Treasury assets exist to support long-term capital strategy
By contrast, investment funds exist solely to manage portfolios for return.
Treating these two structures as equivalent—based on a balance-sheet ratio alone—collapses a distinction that has long been foundational to corporate and securities law.
If your organization relies on clear, fundamentals-based definitions of operating companies, this misclassification matters. Bitcoin For Corporations is asking MSCI to withdraw the proposal and engage on a more principled framework. You can add your name to the open letter here.
3. Treasury Strategy Does Not Redefine Core Business Activity
A company can change how it stores excess capital without changing what it does.
A manufacturer that holds cash remains a manufacturer
A software firm holding foreign currency remains a software firm
A company holding Bitcoin as treasury reserve remains an operating company
Treasury allocation is a capital management decision, not a change in business model.
4. This Would Be a Radical Departure From Decades of Index Practice
Historically, index classification has been driven by operational reality, not asset composition alone.
Primary business determination has relied on:
Revenue sources
Earnings contribution
Ongoing commercial activity
This proposal replaces that holistic approach with a single market-price-driven metric on the asset side of the balance sheet—something never applied consistently across asset classes before.
5. Digital Assets Are Being Singled Out—Uniquely
Under the proposal:
A company with 51% of assets in Bitcoin → excluded
A company with 51% in real estate → included
A company with 51% in equities or commodities → included
No equivalent rule exists for other treasury assets.
This lack of neutrality directly conflicts with the principles that global indexes are supposed to uphold.
6. The Proposal Conflicts With Core Index Principles
MSCI’s benchmarks are built on three foundational ideas:
Neutrality – no asset-class favoritism
Representativeness – reflecting real economic activity
Stability – avoiding unnecessary churn
A rule that reclassifies companies based on volatile market prices undermines all three.
7. The Rule Would Introduce Structural Instability Into Indexes
Consider a company with:
45% of assets in digital form → eligible
No operational change
Normal market appreciation pushes it to 51%
Under the proposal, that company would suddenly be excluded—despite:
No change in revenue
No change in operations
No change in business strategy
This creates a scenario where companies could flip in and out of indexes purely due to price movement, forcing unnecessary rebalancing, costs, and tracking error for index-linked funds.
This kind of mechanical instability would impose real costs on index-tracking funds, issuers, and long-term investors—without improving market clarity. That’s why companies and market participants are urging MSCI to withdraw the proposal and revisit it with industry input. Join the call for MSCI to withdraw this rule proposal, and add your signature to the open letter here.
8. A More Robust Alternative Already Exists
The issue is not classification—it’s how classification is done.
A principles-based, multi-factor framework would evaluate:
Revenue and earnings mix
Legal and regulatory status
Core corporate activities (employees, R&D, capex)
Public disclosures and stated strategy
This approach reflects the entire business, not a single fluctuating ratio.
9. The Coalition’s Ask Is Clear and Constructive
Market participants are calling for a two-step solution:
Withdraw the current proposal due to its structural flaws
Engage with the market to develop a neutral, principles-based framework that preserves index integrity
The goal is not special treatment—but consistent treatment aligned with long-standing market norms.
Why This Matters
Indexes are not academic exercises. They:
Guide trillions of dollars in capital allocation
Shape passive investment flows
Influence cost of capital for public companies
If index rules become arbitrary, unstable, or asset-specific, they stop reflecting the real economy—and start distorting it.
Final Thought
If your organization depends on fundamentals-based equity benchmarks, this proposal affects you—whether or not you hold digital assets today.
Indexes only work when they remain neutral, stable, and grounded in operating reality. Market participants are asking MSCI to withdraw the proposed digital asset rule and work toward a principles-based alternative.If you or your organization depend on fair and consistent equity benchmarks, adding your signature to the open letter helps ensure those standards are preserved.
Index integrity relies on clear principles, not price-driven thresholds.
Engagement now helps ensure global benchmarks remain neutral, stable, and representative for everyone who relies on them.
Disclaimer: This content was prepared on behalf of Bitcoin For Corporations for informational purposes only. It reflects the author’s own analysis and opinion and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Nothing in this article constitutes an offer, invitation, or solicitation to purchase, sell, or subscribe for any security or financial product.
Strategy, the world’s largest Bitcoin treasury company, has submitted a formal response to MSCI’s consultation on digital asset treasury companies (DATs), urging the index provider not to exclude companies whose digital asset holdings exceed 50% of total assets.
In its detailed letter to the MSCI Equity Index Committee, Strategy argued that the proposed threshold is “misguided” and would have “profoundly harmful consequences” for both investors and the broader digital asset industry.
Founded in 1989, the company operates as a corporate treasury and capital markets business with significant Bitcoin holdings, offering investors a range of equity and fixed-income securities backed by its digital assets.
According to the company, its model is fundamentally different from a passive investment fund. Strategy actively uses its Bitcoin reserves to generate returns for shareholders, providing novel financial instruments akin to traditional bank and insurance products.
The company emphasized that “DATs are operating companies, not investment funds,” noting that its operational flexibility allows it to adapt its business model as the technology evolves.
Strategy calls MSCI’s logic “arbitrary, and unworkable.”
Strategy criticized MSCI’s proposal for introducing a digital-asset-specific 50% threshold, calling it “discriminatory, arbitrary, and unworkable.”
The company highlighted that many traditional businesses — including oil companies, timber operators, REITs, and media firms — also maintain concentrated holdings in single asset types but are not treated as investment funds.
The company warned that price volatility, differing accounting standards, and asset valuation changes would create index instability, causing DATs to whipsaw in and out of MSCI’s indices.
The letter further argued that the proposal would inappropriately inject policy considerations into index construction.
“MSCI has consistently held itself out as providing indices that accurately and objectively measure market performance,” Strategy wrote.
JUST IN: Strategy officially asks MSCI to revoke its proposal to exclude #Bitcoin treasury companies like $MSTR from its indexes. pic.twitter.com/3k1RlJDZjX
Excluding DATs based on the type of assets they hold, rather than the underlying business model, could compromise MSCI’s neutrality and mislead investors about how these companies operate.
Strategy noted that its investors buy exposure to the company’s management and innovation capabilities, not merely to Bitcoin itself, citing historical trading patterns in which the company’s stock often outperformed the underlying value of its digital holdings.
Strategy: Digital assets are popular in government policy
The company also framed the debate in the context of U.S. economic policy. Strategy noted that the federal government, under President Trump, has made digital assets central to national economic endeavors, including the establishment of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and promoting access to digital assets in retirement accounts.
Excluding DATs from MSCI indices would, the letter argued, conflict with these policies and chill innovation in a nascent sector.
Analysts cited in the letter estimate that Strategy alone could face up to $2.8 billion in stock outflows if MSCI implements the exclusion, with broader implications for the emerging digital asset economy.
Strategy positioned itself within a historical context, comparing the rise of digital asset treasuries to earlier industrial leaders.
The letter highlighted examples like Standard Oil, AT&T, Intel, and NVIDIA, noting that these companies made concentrated investments in emerging technologies that were initially viewed as risky but ultimately became foundational to economic growth.
Similarly, the letter argued, digital asset treasuries are building critical infrastructure for a new financial system.
Don’t succumb to ‘short-sightedness’
The letter concluded by urging MSCI to reject the 50% threshold, citing the risk of stifling innovation, damaging index integrity, and undermining federal strategy. Strategy recommended that MSCI allow the market to continue evolving and conduct more thorough consultation before considering any policy that would differentiate DATs from other operating companies.
The company invoked MSCI’s precedent in reorganizing the Communication Services sector after nearly two decades of industry evolution, suggesting a measured, deliberative approach.
“History shows that when foundational technologies have emerged, institutions that prospered allowed markets to test them rather than throttling them in advance,” Strategy wrote. “MSCI can either succumb to short-sightedness or allow its indices to reflect, neutrally and faithfully, the next era of financial technology.”
Elsewhere, companies like Strive and Bitcoin For Corporations also challenged MSCI’s decision.
Bitcoin For Corporations (BFC), in coordination with its member companies, formally challenged MSCI’s proposed rule to exclude companies from the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes if digital assets represent 50% or more of total assets.
The rule would apply to companies whose primary business is classified as digital-asset treasury activity.
BFC argues the proposal misclassifies operating companies by prioritizing balance-sheet holdings over actual business operations.
“MSCI has long defined companies by what they do, not by what they hold. This proposal abandons that principle for a single asset class,” said George Mekhail, managing director of BFC. “A shareholder-approved treasury decision shouldn’t override that reality.”
The coalition identified three structural issues with the proposal. First, it redefines primary business based on asset composition rather than revenue-generating operations. Second, it singles out digital assets while other asset classes face no similar treatment.
Third, it ties index inclusion to volatile market prices, creating unpredictable membership changes.
BFC warned that the proposal could lead to passive fund outflows, higher capital costs, and increased volatility for companies, all unrelated to operational performance.
The group urged MSCI to withdraw the threshold, maintain an operations-based classification, ensure asset-class neutrality, and engage with market participants on a business-aligned framework.
1/ JUST IN: @BitcoinForCorps (BFC) is formally calling on MSCI to withdraw its proposed 50% digital-asset exclusion rule.
The proposal directly affects how operating companies are treated in global indexes.
Strive Asset Management, co-founded by Vivek Ramaswamy, also formally urged MSCI last week to reconsider its proposal to exclude companies with bitcoin holdings exceeding 50% of total assets from major equity benchmarks.
In a letter to MSCI CEO Henry Fernandez, Strive warned that the rule could produce inconsistent results due to differing accounting standards under U.S. GAAP and IFRS.
Strive, the 14th-largest corporate bitcoin holder with over 7,500 BTC, argued that the 50% threshold is “unjustified, overbroad, and unworkable.” Its executives highlighted that many bitcoin treasury companies operate real businesses in sectors such as AI data centers, structured finance, and cloud infrastructure.
They compared the proposed treatment of bitcoin to other assets, noting that energy companies with large oil reserves or gold miners are not excluded from indexes.
The firm also cited market volatility, derivatives exposure, and accounting differences as factors that could make index inclusion unpredictable.
Strive warned that strict rules could drive innovation abroad, giving international firms a competitive advantage.
MSCI plans to announce its decision on January 15, 2026. Strive’s intervention reinforces the broader industry call for operations-based classification, asset-class neutrality, and fair treatment of companies holding significant bitcoin as part of their treasury strategy.
MSCI could exclude Strategy
Perhaps the company most affected by this would be Strategy, the tech- and Bitcoin-focused software company famous for its bold Bitcoin reserve strategy. Strategy and Chairman Michael Saylor recently pushed back against concerns that MSCI could exclude the company from major equity indices, which analysts warn might trigger billions in passive outflows.
Saylor emphasized that Strategy is not a fund or holding company but an operating business with a $500 million software division and a $7.7 billion Bitcoin-backed credit program.
He highlighted products like Stretch ($STRC), a Bitcoin-backed credit instrument, and stressed that Strategy actively creates, structures, and operates financial products rather than passively holding assets.
Disclaimer: Bitcoin For Corporations And Bitcoin Magazine both operate under the parent company of BTC Inc.
Login
