MSCI is contemplating a brand new rule that might take away firms from its International Investable Market Indexes if 50% or extra of their belongings are held in digital belongings comparable to Bitcoin. The proposal seems easy, however the implications are far-reaching. It could have an effect on firms like Michael Saylor’s Technique (previously MicroStrategy), Eric and Donald Trump Jr’s American Bitcoin Corp (ABTC), and dozens of others throughout world markets whose enterprise fashions are totally legit, totally regulated, and totally aligned with long-standing company treasury practices.
The aim of this doc is to clarify what MSCI is proposing, why the considerations raised round Bitcoin treasury firms are overstated, and why excluding these companies would undermine benchmark neutrality, cut back representativeness, and introduce extra instability—not much less—into the indexing system.
MSCI launched a session to find out whether or not firms whose main exercise entails Bitcoin or different digital-asset treasury administration ought to be excluded from its flagship fairness indices if their digital-asset holdings exceed 50% of complete belongings. The proposed implementation date is February 2026.
The proposal would sweep in a broad set of firms:
Technique (previously MicroStrategy), a serious software program and business-intelligence agency that holds Bitcoin as a treasury reserve. American Bitcoin Corp (ABTC), a brand new public firm created by Eric and Donald Trump with a Bitcoin-focused steadiness sheet. Miners, infrastructure companies, and diversified working firms that use Bitcoin as a long-term inflation hedge or capital reserve.
These firms are all publicly traded working entities with audited financials, actual merchandise, actual prospects, and established governance. None are “Bitcoin ETFs.” Their solely distinction is a treasury technique that features a liquid, globally traded asset.
JPMorgan analysts lately warned that Technique might resist $2.8B in passive outflows if MSCI removes it from its indices, and as much as $8.8B if different index suppliers comply with.
Their evaluation appropriately identifies the mechanical nature of passive flows. But it surely misses the true context.
Technique has traded greater than $1 trillion in quantity this 12 months.The “catastrophic” $2.8B state of affairs represents:
Lower than one common buying and selling day ~12% of a typical week ~3% of a typical month 0.26% of year-to-date buying and selling move
In liquidity phrases, that is immaterial. The narrative of a liquidity disaster doesn’t match market construction actuality. The bigger problem just isn’t the outflow itself—it’s the precedent that index exclusion would set.
If benchmark suppliers start eradicating firms due to the composition of their treasury belongings, the definition of what qualifies as an “eligible firm” turns into non-neutral.
MSCI’s coverage place additionally conflicts with the composition of MSCI’s personal belongings.
MSCI studies roughly $5.3B in complete belongings.Greater than 70%—about $3.7B—is goodwill and intangible belongings. These are non-liquid, non-marketable accounting entries that can’t be bought or marked to market. They aren’t verifiable in the identical approach that digital belongings are.
Bitcoin, against this:
Trades globally 24/7 Has clear worth discovery Is totally auditable and mark-to-market Is extra liquid than almost any company treasury asset outdoors sovereign money
The proposal would penalize firms for holding an asset that’s way more liquid, clear, and objectively priced than the intangibles that dominate MSCI’s personal steadiness sheet.
MSCI is a world standard-setter. Its benchmarks are utilized by trillions of {dollars} in capital allocation. These indices are ruled by extensively accepted ideas—neutrality, representativeness, and stability. The proposed digital-asset threshold contradicts all three.
Neutrality
Benchmarks should keep away from arbitrary discrimination amongst lawful enterprise methods.Corporations usually are not eliminated for holding:
Giant money positions Gold reserves Overseas change reserves Commodities Actual property Receivables that exceed 50% of belongings
Digital belongings are the one treasury asset singled out for exclusion. Bitcoin is authorized, regulated, and extensively held by establishments worldwide.
Representativeness
Indices are supposed to mirror investable markets—not curate them.
Bitcoin treasury methods are more and more utilized by companies of all sizes as a long-term capital-preservation device. Eradicating these firms reduces the accuracy and completeness of MSCI’s indices, giving buyers a distorted view of the company panorama.
Stability
The 50% threshold creates a binary cliff impact.Bitcoin routinely strikes 10–20% in regular buying and selling. An organization might fall out and in of index eligibility a number of instances a 12 months merely as a result of worth motion, forcing:
Pointless turnover Further monitoring error Larger fund implementation prices
Index suppliers sometimes keep away from guidelines that amplify volatility. This rule would introduce it.
Pressured Promoting
If MSCI proceeds, passive index funds would want to promote holdings in affected firms.But the real-world influence is marginal as a result of:
Technique and ABTC are extremely liquid Flows symbolize a tiny fraction of regular buying and selling quantity Lively managers are free to proceed holding or growing publicity
Entry to Capital
Analysts warn that exclusion might “sign” danger. However markets adapt shortly.So long as an organization is:
Liquid Clear In a position to increase capital In a position to talk its treasury policyIt stays investable. Index exclusion is an inconvenience—not a structural impairment.
Precedent Threat
If MSCI embeds asset-based exclusion guidelines, it units a template for eradicating firms based mostly on their financial savings choices quite than their enterprise fundamentals.
That could be a path towards politicizing world benchmarks.
Bitcoin treasury methods are increasing internationally:
Japan (Metaplanet) Germany (Aifinyo) Europe (Capital B) Latin America (a number of mining and infrastructure companies) North America (Technique, ABTC, miners, and energy-Bitcoin hybrids)
If MSCI excludes these firms disproportionately, U.S. and Western firms are positioned at a aggressive drawback relative to jurisdictions that embrace digital capital.
Indexes are supposed to mirror markets—not decide nationwide winners and losers.
MSCI’s latest dealing with of Metaplanet’s public providing reveals it understands the dangers of “reverse turnover.” To keep away from index churn, MSCI selected to not implement the occasion on the time of providing.
This acknowledgement underscores a broader reality: inflexible guidelines can destabilize indices.A digital-asset threshold creates comparable fragility on a a lot bigger scale.
MSCI can obtain transparency and analytical readability with out excluding lawful working firms.
A. Enhanced Disclosure
Require standardized reporting of digital-asset holdings in public filings.This offers buyers readability with out altering index composition.
B. Classification or Sub-Sector Label
Add a class comparable to “Digital Asset Treasury–Built-in” to assist buyers differentiate enterprise fashions.
C. Liquidity or Governance Screens
If considerations are about liquidity, governance, or volatility, MSCI ought to use the standards it already applies uniformly throughout sectors.
None require exclusion.
The proposal doesn’t clear up an actual downside.It creates a number of:
Reduces representativeness of world indices Violates neutrality by discriminating towards a particular treasury asset Creates pointless turnover for passive funds Damages world competitiveness Units a precedent for non-neutral index building
Bitcoin is cash. Corporations shouldn’t be penalized for saving cash—or for selecting a long-term treasury asset that’s extra liquid, extra clear, and extra objectively priced than most company intangibles.
Indexes should mirror markets as they’re—not as gatekeepers choose them to be.
MSCI ought to withdraw the proposal and keep the neutrality that has made its benchmarks trusted throughout world capital markets.
Disclaimer: This content material was ready on behalf of Bitcoin For Firms for informational functions solely. It displays the writer’s personal evaluation and opinion and shouldn’t be relied upon as funding recommendation. Nothing on this article constitutes a proposal, invitation, or solicitation to buy, promote, or subscribe for any safety or monetary product.
