Strategy, one of the largest corporate holders of bitcoin, has publicly opposed a proposal by index provider MSCI to tighten listing criteria. In the issuer's official position, the new rules are called "discriminatory and arbitrary," signaling growing tension between traditional financial standards and the new reality of digital assets.
The essence of the MSCI initiative is as follows: if less than half of a company's assets are not directly related to its core business, such an issuer may be subject to additional scrutiny. In the event of an unsatisfactory outcome, the company risks losing its place in index baskets, which automatically entails an outflow of capital from passive investors who track these benchmarks.
In a test application of the updated methodology, two notable market figures came under fire at once — Strategy and Japan's Metaplanet. Both companies are known for their aggressive strategy of accumulating the first cryptocurrency in treasury reserves. In addition, SharpLink was added to the watchlist, indicating an expansion of the risk zone for such business models.
It is highly telling that MSCI accepts comments from stakeholders until September 30, and plans to announce its final decision no later than October 16. This gives the market a short window for a consolidated response, but the very framing of the issue raises concerns among investors in bitcoin-oriented companies.
Analyst's view
From my perspective, this MSCI initiative is an attempt by classic index giants to bring order to an era when corporations are increasingly using cryptocurrency as a strategic reserve. However, the formal approach to assessing the "core business" ignores a fundamental shift: for Strategy and Metaplanet, bitcoin is not a speculative asset but the core of long-term financial policy. Excluding such issuers from indices would not only distort the real picture of the market but also create a dangerous precedent that could deter other companies from incorporating digital assets into their balance sheets. Investors should closely monitor the October decision — its consequences extend far beyond a couple of specific names.