MSCI intends to exclude digital asset treasury companies: Strategy teams up with 309 institutions for a hardcore confrontation

The path of integration between digital assets and traditional finance is facing a critical turning point. Global index provider MSCI proposed a controversial measure in October—intending to exclude companies holding digital assets amounting to 50% or more of their total assets from its global investable market indices. This move directly threatens the Strategy-led digital asset treasury company (DAT) ecosystem and could trigger a net passive fund outflow of up to $8.8 billion.

A Key Battle Concerning the “Future of Finance”

According to Bitcoin for Corporations, 39 companies may face the risk of being delisted from MSCI indices. JPMorgan analysts warn that the exclusion of just Strategy could lead to nearly $2.8 billion in passive fund outflows. If other index providers follow suit with similar rules, the entire industry could face capital shocks totaling as much as $8.8 billion.

In response to this urgent situation, Strategy’s Executive Chairman and Founder Michael Saylor and President and CEO Phong Le jointly signed a 12-page open letter, explicitly opposing the proposal, stating it is “severely misleading and would cause profound harm to the interests of global investors and the development of the digital asset industry.”

Why Strategy Rejects Being Simply “Categorized”

The True Identity of Digital Asset Treasury Companies Is Misread

Strategy emphasizes in its defense that DAT is not a passive fund but a fully operational business with a complete commercial model. Although Strategy holds over 600,000 Bitcoin, its core value derives from designing and launching “digital credit” tools—including various preferred stock products with fixed dividends, floating dividends, different seniority levels, and credit protection clauses.

By raising funds through the sale of these financial instruments and then increasing Bitcoin holdings, Strategy creates a dual-value model of “active operation + asset appreciation.” As long as the long-term investment return of Bitcoin exceeds the financing costs denominated in USD, it can generate stable returns for shareholders—fundamentally different from the passive logic of traditional investment funds or ETFs.

Why Only Digital Asset Companies Are “Uniquely Treated”

Strategy raises a pointed question: Why are companies like oil giants, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and timber companies—focused on a single asset class—not classified as investment funds and excluded from indices? MSCI’s 50% threshold essentially amounts to selective discrimination, violating the fundamental principle that indices should maintain industry neutrality.

Three Critical Flaws in MSCI’s Proposal

Unrealistic Implementation Feasibility

Due to the high volatility of digital asset prices, a single company could repeatedly enter and exit MSCI indices within days due to asset value fluctuations, causing market chaos. Additionally, differing treatment under US GAAP and international IFRS standards for digital assets will lead to companies with similar business models receiving different classifications based on their registration jurisdiction. This artificial index volatility contradicts the original intent of index design.

Policy Bias Violating the Principle of Neutrality

MSCI claims its indices provide “comprehensive” coverage aimed at reflecting “the evolution of underlying equity markets,” rather than making value judgments about any market, company, or strategy. However, by selectively excluding digital asset companies, MSCI is effectively making policy judgments on behalf of the market—something index providers should avoid.

Contradiction with U.S. National Strategy

Strategy emphasizes that the proposal directly conflicts with the U.S. government’s strategic goal of leading in digital assets. During the first week of President Trump’s administration, an executive order was signed to promote digital financial technology growth and establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve. If MSCI’s proposal is implemented, it would prevent U.S. pension funds, 401(k) plans, and other long-term capital from investing in digital asset companies, leading to billions of dollars in capital outflows and weakening the U.S.’s position in global digital asset competition.

Collective Industry Voice

Strategy is not fighting alone. According to BitcoinTreasuries.NET, as of December 11, 208 publicly listed companies worldwide hold over 1.07 million Bitcoin, accounting for more than 5% of the total Bitcoin supply. At current market prices (~$90.69K), these assets are worth approximately $100 billion, serving as an important bridge for institutional adoption of cryptocurrencies.

Industry organization Bitcoin for Corporations has initiated a joint petition calling for MSCI to withdraw the proposal, advocating that classification should be based on actual business models, financial performance, and operational characteristics, rather than a simple asset percentage cutoff. To date, 309 companies and investors have signed the joint letter, including industry leaders such as Strive, BitGo, Redwood Digital Group, 21MIL, and many individual developers and investors.

Publicly listed company Strive, which holds Bitcoin, has proposed a practical solution: creating an index version that excludes digital asset treasury companies, such as MSCI USA ex Digital Asset Treasuries and MSCI ACWI ex Digital Asset Treasuries, using transparent screening mechanisms to allow investors to choose benchmarks freely. This approach preserves index integrity while meeting diverse investor needs.

Decision Window and Industry Outlook

MSCI’s consultation period for the proposal will last until December 31, 2025, with a final decision expected to be announced before January 15, 2026. If adjustments are made, they will be incorporated into the index review scheduled for February 2026. This timeline indicates that the entire industry faces an urgent policy decision window.

The core demand in Strategy’s open letter is: either MSCI fully withdraws the delisting proposal, allowing the market to test DAT’s value through free competition; or if they insist on special treatment, they should expand industry consultation, extend the consultation period, and provide sufficient logical explanations to justify the rules.

The Fundamental Issue Behind

This confrontation between Strategy and MSCI is essentially a debate on “how emerging financial innovations can integrate into the traditional system.” Digital asset treasury companies, as “cross-border” entities between traditional finance and the crypto world, are neither purely tech companies nor simple investment funds but represent a new business model built on digital assets.

As the decision date approaches, the outcome of this battle will not only determine the index inclusion eligibility of several Bitcoin-holding listed companies but also define the critical survival boundary for the future of the digital asset industry within the global traditional financial system.