A prominent Bitcoin policy think tank has raised serious questions regarding the methodology and origins behind MSCI’s latest proposals to tighten rules governing its market benchmarks. The controversy centers on whether the global benchmark provider is repackaging an abandoned crypto-specific policy under the broader, neutral-sounding guise of evaluating "non-operating businesses"—a move that could ultimately result in the exclusion of major digital asset treasury firms like Strategy and Metaplanet from critical global indexes.
The unfolding regulatory and index governance dispute highlights the intense friction between traditional Wall Street standards and the rapidly evolving corporate strategies of companies holding massive digital asset reserves. As index providers attempt to adapt to balance sheets dominated by alternative assets, policy advocates are scrutinizing the transparency, consistency, and potential hidden biases driving these policy shifts.
The Evolution of MSCI’s Index Exclusion Risk
The regulatory drama began in earnest when MSCI first proposed excluding digital asset treasury companies from its global equity indexes in 2025. That initial proposal sent ripples through traditional financial markets and the crypto sector alike, directly targeting firms that hold substantial cryptocurrency reserves rather than engaging in traditional commercial operations. However, following significant industry pushback, market skepticism, and analytical warnings, MSCI shelved that specific proposal in January. At the time, the index provider stated it would instead take a step back to review the criteria for "non-operating companies" more broadly, signaling that a more holistic approach to index eligibility was underway.
That broader review materialized on August 3, when MSCI returned with an expanded consultation proposal. Despite its broader framing, the updated criteria retained mechanisms that could still effectively remove Strategy and Metaplanet from its market benchmarks. Under the newly proposed framework, MSCI outlined a two-step process. First, the provider would assess whether a company possesses substantial operating assets, followed by the application of five additional financial tests designed to determine overall corporate viability for index inclusion.
Simulations released by MSCI alongside the consultation document showed that the proposed methodology would indeed trigger the removal of Strategy and Metaplanet, alongside other asset-heavy entities such as uranium investment company Yellow Cake.
Uncovering the Metadata Behind the Proposal
The Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI), a dedicated Bitcoin policy think tank, decided to investigate the provenance of MSCI’s revised language. In a detailed research paper titled Wall Street’s Invisible Committee, the BPI revealed findings that cast doubt on the procedural neutrality of the benchmark provider’s latest consultation.
According to the research paper, metadata extracted from the source presentation behind MSCI’s consultation showed that the digital asset was stored in an internal directory folder specifically designated for digital asset treasury companies. Based on this technical finding, the BPI argued that the discovery "warrants asking whether its broader language carried forward" MSCI’s original, abandoned effort to purge digital asset treasury companies from its indexes under a different name.
The implications of such an exclusion are far-reaching. If firms like Strategy and Metaplanet are stripped from MSCI indexes, institutional investment funds that passively track these global benchmarks would be legally and operationally mandated to liquidate their holdings in the affected companies. The forced selling pressure could be immense. Back in 2025, financial analysts at JPMorgan estimated that Strategy alone could face approximately $2.8 billion in forced selling outflows if it were successfully dropped from the influential indexes.
Cointelegraph reached out to MSCI for comment regarding the BPI’s findings and the broader index consultation, but had not received a response prior to publication.
BPI Questions How MSCI Defines an Operating Company
Throughout the interim period after shelving its crypto-specific proposal in January, MSCI maintained temporary restrictions on affected digital asset treasury companies. These interim measures included placing strict limits on any new additions of such firms to its indexes while the broader governance review was being finalized. MSCI has consistently defended the logic of its new tests, asserting that the framework is specifically designed to identify and filter out corporate entities whose primary market value stems from passive asset accumulation rather than active, revenue-generating commercial operations.
However, the BPI’s critique goes deeper than mere procedural history, targeting the very financial definitions employed by the index provider. In its research paper, the BPI challenged MSCI’s heavy reliance on the concept of "operating assets," pointing out that the term lacks a standardized, universally accepted definition or category on standard balance sheets under US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
The BPI warned that the ambiguity surrounding "operating assets" grants MSCI excessive discretionary power. Such wide discretion could allow the benchmark provider subjective leeway in how it chooses to classify various balance sheet items, including cash reserves, general investments, ongoing construction projects, and strategic long-term holdings.
Furthermore, the think tank cautioned that the ramifications of these ambiguous rules extend far beyond the cryptocurrency sector. Capital-intensive traditional industries—such as mining operations or satellite telecommunications networks—frequently hold massive amounts of physical and financial assets while relying entirely on external financing and capital markets for years before generating meaningful operational revenue. By enforcing rigid and subjective criteria, MSCI risk unintentionally penalizing legitimate capital-intensive businesses outside of crypto.
In light of these concerns, the BPI has formally called upon MSCI to publish much clearer, fully transparent, and reproducible criteria for determining which corporate entities ultimately qualify for inclusion in its broad-market indexes.
MSCI accepted feedback on the consultation proposal through September 30 and has indicated that it expects to announce the final results of the review on or before October 16. Any structural changes resulting from this consultation are currently proposed to take effect as part of the scheduled November 2026 Index Review.
Leave a Reply