Skip to content
- MSCI proposal risks $10B–$15B in forced selling across 39 digital asset firms.
- Strategy and asset managers say MSCI rule breaks index neutrality standards.
- Critics warn 50% threshold could cause index churn and higher tracking errors.
MSCI has proposed excluding digital asset treasury companies from its Global Investable Market Indexes. The plan has triggered strong opposition across the investment industry. Analysts warn it could force $10 billion to $15 billion in selling pressure. The impact could hit 39 companies with a combined float-adjusted market capitalization of $113 billion.
The consultation period closes on December 31. MSCI plans to announce its final decision on January 15, 2026. If approved, the change would take effect during the February index review. The rule would apply to firms whose digital asset holdings exceed 50% of total assets. Passive funds tracking MSCI benchmarks would need to rebalance.
Strategy Inc. has formally challenged the proposal. In a December 10 letter, Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Chief Executive Phong Le urged MSCI to withdraw the plan. They described the move as misguided. They warned it could cause profound harm to capital markets and U.S. digital asset leadership.
MSCI Proposal Conflicts With Pro-Innovation Digital Asset Policy
The company asserted that the proposal contradicts the existing administration’s pro-innovation digital asset agenda. The strategy mentioned such initiatives as a possible Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. It also mentioned the attempt to increase access to retirement plans on the digital asset. Strategy proported that exclusion sends the wrong message to the international investors.
The Strategy response highlighted a significant distinction. It reported that MSCI does not differentiate operating firms and passive investment vehicles. According to Strategy, it operates a dynamic Bitcoin-based corporate treasury and capital markets program. The company issues equity and fixed-income securities that have different exposure to Bitcoin. It stated that this model is not similar to funds that exist merely to own assets.
Also Read: Tether Leads $8M Speed Funding to Expand USDT Payments on Bitcoin Lightning
BitcoinForCorporations supported that argument by analysis. The group explained that the proposal of MSCI is against the benchmark principles of representativeness, neutrality, and stability. It was based on the IOSCO and EU Benchmark Regulation standards.
The team pointed out that MSCI has REITs even though there is 75% real estate concentration. It also incorporates Berkshire Hathaway and gold miners holding large commodities.
Critics Call 50% Asset Threshold Arbitrary and Volatility-Prone
The 50% asset threshold was also addressed by critics. Strategy termed it arbitrary. The company cautioned that crypto volatility may rapidly move firms either above or below the limit. The problem may be aggravated by different accounting standards. Companies were able to enter and exit indices repeatedly. That turbulence may boost volatility and tracking errors.
On December 6, Strive Asset Management filed opposition. Matt Cole, the Chief Executive, claimed that MSCI does not understand Bitcoin-related companies related to AI infrastructure. The companies that are converting data centers into miners include MARA Holdings, Riot Platforms, and Hut 8. They are now capable of supporting power-intensive AI workloads.
Strive suggested an alternative. It proposed a similar ex-digital asset treasury index. Investors were free not to change the core benchmark. One petition, the BitcoinForCorporations petition opposing the plan, has gone through 1,000 signatures.
Bitwise Asset Management came out in support of the opposition too. JPMorgan earlier forecasted Strategy may alone have had $2.8 billion in outflows. Its market capitalization of approximately $9 billion is in passive funds.
Also Read: Bitcoin Adoption Accelerates as Bhutan Allocates $1B BTC to Build Economic City
