Emerging Bitcoin Treasury Movement Contests MSCI's Index Rules, Citing Market Distortion Risks

The Core Conflict: $8.8 Billion in Jeopardy Over Index Exclusion Policy

A coalition of 1,000+ corporate signatories is pushing back against MSCI’s controversial proposal to remove companies with digital asset holdings exceeding 50% of total assets from its major global equity indices. The stakes are substantial—JPMorgan analysts warn that Strategy (MSTR) alone faces potential passive fund outflows of $2.8 billion, with system-wide exposure potentially reaching $8.8 billion if other index providers follow MSCI’s blueprint. At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question about how index rules should classify modern businesses: by their operational activities, or by balance sheet composition.

Who’s Standing Against the Proposal

Corporate Bitcoin (BFC), a Nashville-based advocacy network, has mobilized the opposition. Its membership spans industry leaders including Strategy, the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin treasury under Michael Saylor, along with Strive Asset Management (holding 7,500 BTC and ranked as the 14th largest institutional holder), and Japan’s Metaplanet (Tokyo Stock Exchange: 3350). Individual and institutional investors have also registered their disapproval, creating unprecedented unity around a market structure dispute.

Where MSCI’s Index Rules Logic Breaks Down

The MSCI proposal would automatically exclude from the MSCI Global Investable Market Index any operating company where digital assets comprise half or more of total assets and treasury activity is the primary function. Critically, this exclusionary framework applies only to digital holdings—not to energy companies, real estate trusts (REITs), or commodity producers, despite their equally concentrated balance sheets.

George Mekhail, Managing Director of Corporate Bitcoin, highlighted the inconsistency: MSCI’s historical methodology defined companies by their operational characteristics—products, customer relationships, and revenue streams—not by singular balance sheet items. This new index rules approach abandons that precedent exclusively for Bitcoin-holding firms.

The Operational Company Defense

In formal correspondence, Strategy rejected the 50% threshold as “discriminatory, arbitrary, and unworkable.” The company’s executives, including CEO Phong Le, characterized digital asset treasuries as actively managed operating businesses rather than passive investment vehicles. They argued that corporate decision-making around capital allocation and returns generation—hallmarks of operational execution—distinguish these entities from fund-like structures. Precedent matters here: timber companies, oil producers, and REITs all maintain highly concentrated holdings yet retain index inclusion, suggesting the index rules targeting digital assets represent a departure from established principles rather than consistent application thereof.

Strive’s Neutrality Argument and the Geographic Concern

Strive Asset Management submitted a seven-page rebuttal to MSCI CEO Henry Fernandez, contending that the proposal violates index neutrality principles. A secondary concern emerged around accounting standards: Chief Investment Officer Ben Walkman warned that differential treatment between U.S. GAAP and IFRS accounting for digital assets would inadvertently favor international markets while penalizing U.S.-listed companies—introducing bias where neutrality is the mandate.

Rather than opposing dedicated indices, Strive proposed an alternative: MSCI could create optional “digital asset-excluded” index variants alongside the benchmark, mirroring existing tobacco or energy screening mechanisms without rewriting core index rules.

Five Clear Demands to MSCI

The alliance has crystallized its position into specific requests:

• Withdrawal of the proposed 50% digital asset exclusion threshold
• Retention of the operational definition model (products, customers, revenue focus)
• Regulatory consistency distinguishing between operating companies and investment funds
• Asset class neutrality ensuring digital assets receive equivalent treatment to other concentrated holdings
• Collaborative framework development with market participants before structural changes finalize

Timeline and Broader Implications

MSCI’s consultation window closes December 31, 2025, with decisions expected by January 15, 2026. For the corporate Bitcoin community, this debate represents a critical test: whether innovative financial models can achieve parity within traditional market infrastructure. The outcome may signal whether index rules will evolve to accommodate digital assets or entrench existing biases against them.

Beyond immediate market impacts, allies worry that exclusionary index rules could slow capital formation in regions prioritizing digital asset innovation, creating unintended competitive disadvantages across geographies.

About Corporate Bitcoin

Corporate Bitcoin (BFC) serves as a coordinating platform for listed companies, corporate finance professionals, and institutional investors advocating transparent, neutral treatment of Bitcoin and digital assets within global financial systems. The initiative contests restrictive policy proposals and pushes for consistent application of established classification standards to digital asset-holding corporations.