Analyzing the latest changes in the methodology of index provider MSCI, I see a clear signal for a revision of approaches to valuing companies that actively use digital assets on their balance sheets. The proposed criteria, which are intended to tighten the rules for including issuers in global indices, have drawn a sharp reaction from Strategy — one of the largest corporate holders of bitcoin.
The essence of the initiative boils down to the following: if less than half of a company's assets are not directly tied to its core business, such an issuer may be subject to additional scrutiny. In the worst case — excluded from index baskets, which would automatically trigger pressure from passive funds tracking these benchmarks. Strategy has called such logic "discriminatory and arbitrary," and I am inclined to agree with that assertion.
Notably, in a test application of the new rules, two companies significant to the crypto industry came under threat of exclusion: Strategy itself and Japan's Metaplanet. Additionally, SharpLink was placed on a watchlist. This is not a coincidence but a systemic pattern: MSCI, it seems, is attempting to limit the presence of firms whose market capitalization and asset value depend heavily on volatile digital instruments rather than on operational activity in the traditional sector.
However, there is a window for maneuvering. MSCI is accepting feedback from market participants until September 30, and a final decision on implementing the new criteria is planned to be announced no later than October 16. This gives Strategy and other interested parties the opportunity to challenge the rules by providing arguments that bitcoin reserves are not speculative ballast but part of a long-term financial strategy.
In my view, this precedent will serve as an important test of the maturity of institutional recognition of crypto assets. If MSCI yields to pressure, it will pave the way for more accommodating approaches from other index providers. Otherwise, we will see a precedent where regulation of "traditional" financial instruments begins to directly discriminate against innovative business models, which in the long term could undermine confidence in the objectivity of the indices themselves.