Strategy Urges MSCI to Drop Rule That Could Push BTC Firms Out of Indexes
What Is Strategy Pushing Back Against?
Strategy has called on MSCI to abandon a proposal that would exclude companies whose digital-asset holdings exceed 50% of total assets from major global equity benchmarks. In a 12-page letter sent Wednesday to the MSCI Equity Index Committee, the firm said the rule would be unworkable, prone to distortions and at odds with U.S. policy interests.
The dispute centers on MSCI’s plan to assess whether digital-asset treasury companies (DATs) should remain in its Global Investable Market Indexes. MSCI’s initial view is that firms holding large BTC reserves — such as Strategy and BitMine — resemble investment vehicles rather than operating businesses, a type of exposure MSCI’s core equity indexes generally avoid.
Strategy countered that the threshold would remove companies based on the volatility of a single asset rather than on their underlying activity. It warned that index composition could swing erratically as or fall, leading firms to drop in and out of MSCI benchmarks with every market cycle.
Investor Takeaway
Why Does Strategy Say the Proposal Is Impossible to Apply Consistently?
One of Strategy’s central claims is that the 50% test cannot be enforced fairly. The firm pointed to the accounting mismatch between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. Under IFRS, companies may keep BTC at cost on their balance sheets. Under U.S. GAAP, firms must report quarterly fair-value adjustments. Two companies with identical holdings could therefore appear to have very diverse levels of exposure.
Strategy said the result would be inconsistent index treatment based solely on jurisdiction, not business model. It added that companies could cross the threshold simply because of quarterly valuation swings rather than any change in operations.
The firm wrote that BTC-treasury groups would “whipsaw on and off” MSCI , creating “chaos and confusion” for index providers and investors who rely on stable benchmark construction.
How Does Strategy Connect the Issue to U.S. Policy?
Beyond technical concerns, Strategy framed MSCI’s proposal as running counter to the U.S. . The letter cited several initiatives from the Trump administration aimed at expanding institutional access to BTC, including the concept and steps to widen 401(k) access. It referenced directives encouraging “technology-neutral” treatment of crypto companies and argued that MSCI’s rule would shut BTC-reserve companies out of roughly $15 trillion in passive-investment capital.
“Digital assets represent a technological innovation that can serve as the potential future bedrock of global financial systems,” the letter said, adding that excluding firms like Strategy would “stifle innovation” and misrepresent how BTC-treasury companies actually operate.
The firm urged MSCI not to “rush a decision” based on what it described as a “mischaracterization” of its business and the broader category of DATs.
Investor Takeaway
What Comes Next Before MSCI’s January Decision?
MSCI began its review in October, triggering immediate industry pushback. Strategy’s letter follows public comments from Chairman Michael Saylor in November, when he argued the company is “not a fund” and said index categories “don’t define” its business. Other BTC-treasury firms have echoed those concerns. Strive told MSCI last week that the 50% rule would produce uneven outcomes across jurisdictions and suggested releasing optional “ex-digital-asset treasury” versions of indexes for clients who prefer to screen out the category.
A final ruling is expected by Jan. 15 ahead of MSCI’s February rebalancing. If the 50% test goes through, BTC-treasury companies would face a narrower pool of index eligibility. JPMorgan analysts estimated Strategy alone could view passive outflows of about $2.8 billion, rising to as much as $8.8 billion if other index providers adopt similar standards.
Strategy currently holds 660,624 BTC worth nahead $61 billion, making it the , according to The Block data. Any classification change at MSCI would therefore have an outsized impact on passive flows tied to the company.
With feedback continuing to arrive from market participants, MSCI now faces a decision that could influence how digital-asset balance sheets interact with global equities. The outcome will shape whether BTC-treasury firms remain part of mainstream benchmarks or become a separate category carved out of major indexes.
