MSCI is considering new rules that would exclude companies from its Global Investable Market Index that have more than 50% of their assets held in digital assets such as Bitcoin. Although this proposal seems simple, its implications are far-reaching. This will affect companies such as Michael Saylor’s Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), Eric Trump Jr. and Donald Trump Jr.’s American Bitcoin Corporation (ABTC), and dozens of other companies in global markets whose business models are completely legitimate, fully regulated, and fully consistent with long-standing corporate finance practices.
The purpose of this document is to explain what MSCI is proposing, why the concerns raised regarding Bitcoin treasury companies are exaggerated, and why excluding these companies would undermine benchmark neutrality, reduce representativeness, and introduce more instability (if not less) into the index system.
MSCI has launched a consultation to determine whether companies whose primary activity is the financial management of Bitcoin and other digital assets should be excluded from its flagship stock index if their digital asset holdings exceed 50% of their total assets. The proposed implementation date is February 2026.
This proposal will be widely adopted by a wide range of companies.
- Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) is a leading software and business intelligence company that holds Bitcoin in its financial reserves.
- American Bitcoin Corp (ABTC) is a new public company founded by Eric and Donald Trump with a balance sheet centered around Bitcoin.
- Miners, infrastructure companies, and diversified industrial companies that use Bitcoin as a long-term inflation hedge or capital reserve.
These companies are all publicly traded entities with audited financials, real products, real customers, and established governance. None of these are “Bitcoin ETFs”. The only difference between them is their financial strategy, which involves liquid assets traded around the world.
JPMorgan analysts recently warned that Strategies could face up to $2.8 billion in passive outflows if MSCI removes the company from its index, and up to $8.8 billion in passive outflows if other index providers follow suit.
Their analysis pinpoints the mechanical properties of passive flow. But that misses the real context.
The strategy trades more than 1 trillion dollars This year it’s quantitative.
The “catastrophic” $2.8 billion scenario represents:
- Average trading day is less than 1 day
- Approximately 12% of a normal week
- About 3% of a normal month
- 0.26% Transaction flow from the beginning of the year to date
From a liquidity point of view, this is not important. The liquidity crisis narrative does not match the reality of market structure. The bigger problem is not the leak itself, but the precedent that index exclusion sets.
As benchmark providers begin excluding companies based on the composition of their financial assets, the definition of what qualifies as an “eligible company” becomes political rather than financial.
MSCI $MSTR Delisting Reign of Terror: A $2.8 Billion Lie
First, the strategy has zero risk of being delisted from other indices. Second: JPMorgan says MSCI delisting would result in $2.8 billion in forced sales. They’re relying on you not knowing math.
I tried to evaluate… pic.twitter.com/NszHcnYt69
— Adrian (@_Adrian) November 25, 2025
MSCI’s policy positions are also inconsistent with its own asset structure.
MSCI roughly reports $5.3 billion Among total assets.
more 70%-About $3.7 billion—Goodwill and intangible assets. These are illiquid, non-marketable accounting entries that cannot be sold or marked to the market. They cannot be verified in the same way as digital assets.
In contrast, Bitcoin looks like this:
- Available for trading 24 hours a day, 365 days a year worldwide
- Enables transparent price discovery
- Fully auditable and marketable
- More liquid than almost any corporate financial asset other than sovereign cash
The proposal would penalize companies that hold the following assets: Much more liquid, transparent and objectively priced than intangible assets, which make up the bulk of MSCI’s own balance sheet.
MSCI is a New York-based pubco ( $MSCI) with approximately $5.3 billion in assets on its balance sheet.
Seventy percent ($3.7 billion) of MSCI’s assets are classified as “intangible” (goodwill and other intangible assets).
At the same time, MSCI proposes to exempt companies that hold digital assets… pic.twitter.com/dyVwRR2AhH
— Jeff Walton (@PunterJeff) November 25, 2025
MSCI is a global standard setter. Its benchmarks are used in trillions of dollars of capital allocation. These indices are governed by widely accepted principles of neutrality, representativeness, and stability. The proposed digital asset threshold contradicts all three.
neutral
Benchmarking must avoid arbitrary discrimination between legitimate business strategies.
The following companies will not be removed for holding:
- large cash position
- gold reserves
- foreign exchange reserves
- merchandise
- real estate
- Receivables exceeding 50% of assets
Digital assets are the only financial assets listed as exempt. Bitcoin is legal, regulated, and widely held by institutions around the world.
representativeness
Indexes are intended to reflect investable markets and are not selective.
Bitcoin financial strategies are increasingly being used by businesses of all sizes as a long-term capital preservation tool. Excluding these companies reduces the accuracy and completeness of MSCI indexes and gives investors a distorted view of the corporate landscape.
stability
A threshold of 50% creates a binary cliff effect.
Bitcoin fluctuates between 10 and 20% during normal transactions. A company can gain or lose index eligibility multiple times in a year simply due to price changes, resulting in:
- unnecessary turnover
- Additional tracking errors
- Fund execution costs are high
Index providers typically avoid rules that amplify volatility. This rule introduces that.
forced sale
If MSCI moves forward, passive index funds will have to sell their holdings in affected companies.
However, the real-world impact is small for the following reasons:
- Strategy and ABTC are highly liquid
- The flow corresponds to a small fraction of the normal trading volume
- Active managers are free to continue holdings or increase exposure
access to capital
Analysts warned that the exclusion could “suggest” risks. But the market quickly adapts.
As long as the company is:
- liquid
- transparent
- Funding available
- Can communicate financial policy
You can still invest. Excluding indexes is an inconvenience, but it is not a structural failure.
advance risk
When MSCI incorporates asset-based exclusion rules, it sets up a template for excluding companies based on savings decisions rather than business fundamentals.
It is a path to politicizing global benchmarks.
Bitcoin financial strategy is expanding internationally.
- Japan (Metaplanet)
- Germany (Aifinho)
- Europe (capital B)
- Latin America (multiple mining and infrastructure companies)
- North America (Strategies, ABTC, Miners, Energy and Bitcoin Hybrid)
If MSCI unfairly excludes these companies, it will put U.S. and Western companies at a competitive disadvantage compared to jurisdictions that embrace digital capital.
The index is intended to reflect the market, not to pick winners and losers in a country.
MSCI’s recent response to Metaplanet’s initial public offering shows that it understands the risk of “reverse turnover.” To avoid fluctuations in the index, MSCI has chosen to: do not have We will hold an event when it is available.
This realization highlights a broader truth: strict rules can destabilize indices.
Digital asset thresholds create similar vulnerabilities on a much larger scale.
MSCI can provide transparency and analytical clarity without excluding legitimate operating companies.
A. Enhanced disclosure
Require standardized reporting of digital asset holdings in public documents.
This provides clarity to investors without changing the composition of the index.
B. Classification or subsector label
Add categories such as “Digital Asset Treasury – Integrated” to help investors differentiate their business models.
C. Liquidity or Governance Screening
If the concern is about liquidity, governance, or volatility, MSCI should use standards that are already applied uniformly across sectors.
There’s no need to exclude anything.
This suggestion does not solve the actual problem.
Several things will be created.
- reduce the representativeness of the global index
- Violating neutrality by discriminating against certain treasury assets
- Instability is introduced by binary thresholds associated with assets with normal volatility
- Generates unnecessary turnover for passive funds
- impair international competitiveness
- Setting a precedent for politicized index construction
Bitcoin is money. Companies should not be penalized for saving money or choosing long-term financial assets that are more liquid, transparent, and objectively priced than most corporate intangible assets.
Indexes should reflect the market as it is, not what gatekeepers want.
MSCI should withdraw its proposal and ensure that its benchmark remains trusted and neutral across global capital markets.
Disclaimer: This content is written on behalf of Bitcoin For Corporations.. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation or invitation to acquire, purchase or subscribe for any security.
The post MSCI’s short-sighted shift eliminates Bitcoin Treasury companies and undermines benchmark neutrality originally appeared in Bitcoin Magazine and was written by Nick Ward.
