A prominent Bitcoin policy think tank has raised significant questions regarding the development and application of MSCI’s latest proposal to modify its market index rules, particularly concerning the potential reclassification of companies like Strategy and Metaplanet as "non-operating businesses" and their subsequent exclusion. The Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) argues that the methodology’s origins suggest a potential carry-forward of an earlier, crypto-specific exclusion effort under a broader, more opaque framework.
MSCI, a leading provider of global equity, fixed income, and real estate indexes, initially proposed in 2025 a direct exclusion of companies primarily holding digital assets on their balance sheets, often referred to as "digital asset treasury companies," from its widely followed global indexes. This initial proposal, unveiled in late 2024, generated considerable pushback from the digital asset industry and its proponents. In response, MSCI announced in January that it was shelving this specific plan and would instead undertake a more comprehensive review of "non-operating companies" across its entire index suite. However, on August 3rd, MSCI returned with a revised proposal that, while framed more broadly, still targets companies like Strategy and Metaplanet for potential removal from its indexes.
The BPI’s critique, detailed in a research paper titled Wall Street’s Invisible Committee, centers on the provenance of the consultation document. The paper points to metadata associated with MSCI’s consultation materials, indicating that the source presentation underpinning the proposal was housed within an internal folder explicitly labeled for "digital asset treasury companies." This finding, according to the BPI, raises serious concerns about whether MSCI’s broadened language masks a continued, albeit indirect, attempt to exclude companies with significant digital asset holdings. The think tank suggests that this origin warrants a thorough examination of whether the broader criteria developed are genuinely neutral or still disproportionately influenced by the initial crypto-focused intent.
Under the newly proposed methodology, MSCI outlines a two-tiered assessment process. The first step involves evaluating whether a company possesses "substantial operating assets." If this initial hurdle is cleared, the company must then pass five additional, specific financial tests. MSCI’s own internal simulations, released alongside the consultation, projected that under this new framework, Strategy, Metaplanet, and even a traditional resource company like Yellow Cake, a uranium investment firm, could be removed from its indexes. The potential exclusion of these companies, particularly Strategy and Metaplanet, could trigger substantial forced selling by funds that meticulously track MSCI benchmarks. For context, JPMorgan analysts estimated in 2025 that Strategy alone could face approximately $2.8 billion in outflows if it were to be excluded from major indexes.
Chronology of MSCI’s Index Rule Review
The current proposal by MSCI represents the latest development in a process that began with a more targeted approach.
- Late 2024: MSCI first proposes the exclusion of "digital asset treasury companies" from its global indexes, slated for implementation in 2025. This move signals a potential shift in how index providers perceive companies whose primary assets are cryptocurrencies.
- January 2025: Following significant industry pushback and concerns about the direct targeting of a specific sector, MSCI announces it is shelving its crypto-specific exclusion plan. The firm states its intention to review the eligibility of "non-operating companies" more broadly.
- August 3, 2025: MSCI reintroduces a revised proposal. While framed as a general review of non-operating businesses, the proposal includes criteria that could still lead to the exclusion of companies like Strategy and Metaplanet, which hold significant Bitcoin reserves.
- September 30, 2025: The consultation period for MSCI’s proposed changes concludes, with feedback gathered from market participants.
- On or before October 16, 2025: MSCI is expected to announce the results of its consultation.
- November 2026 Index Review: Any changes resulting from this consultation are proposed to take effect, indicating a lengthy implementation timeline.
BPI’s Scrutiny of "Operating Assets" and Financial Metrics
A core element of the BPI’s critique lies in MSCI’s definition and application of "operating assets." The think tank highlights that "operating assets" is not a standardized accounting term within either U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). This lack of standardization, the BPI argues, grants MSCI considerable latitude in how it classifies various balance sheet items, including cash, investments, ongoing construction projects, and strategic holdings. Such discretion, the BPI suggests, could lead to subjective interpretations and potentially arbitrary classifications, impacting companies unevenly.
MSCI has articulated that the objective of its new testing methodology is to identify companies whose intrinsic value is derived primarily from revenue-generating operations rather than from the mere accumulation of assets. This distinction is crucial for index construction, as many indexes aim to represent the performance of active, productive economic entities. However, the BPI contends that the vagueness surrounding "operating assets" could inadvertently penalize companies that are in capital-intensive growth phases or that strategically hold assets as part of a long-term business model, even if those assets are not immediately generating revenue in a traditional sense.
The BPI’s concerns extend beyond the digital asset sector. The paper argues that capital-intensive industries, such as mining operations or nascent satellite network companies, often hold substantial assets and may rely on external financing for extended periods before their operations begin to generate significant revenue. Applying a rigid definition of "operating assets" could unfairly disadvantage these companies, potentially leading to their exclusion from broad-market indexes despite their fundamental operational intent and future revenue-generating potential.
To ensure fairness and transparency, the BPI has called upon MSCI to publish clearer, more specific, and reproducible criteria for determining which companies qualify for inclusion in its broad-market indexes. This would allow companies to better understand the requirements and to adjust their financial reporting or business strategies if necessary, rather than facing the uncertainty of subjective index provider decisions.
Broader Implications for Investment and Market Structure
The potential exclusion of companies like Strategy and Metaplanet from MSCI indexes carries significant implications for the investment landscape. MSCI indexes are a cornerstone of the global financial system, serving as benchmarks for trillions of dollars in investment assets. Funds that track these indexes, including many exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and mutual funds, are compelled to mirror the index’s composition. Consequently, if a company is removed from an MSCI index, these tracking funds are forced to sell their holdings in that company.
This forced selling can exert considerable downward pressure on a company’s stock price, irrespective of its underlying business performance or market value. For companies with substantial market capitalizations, such as Strategy, the potential outflows are immense. As noted, JPMorgan’s 2025 estimate of $2.8 billion in outflows for Strategy underscores the magnitude of this impact. Such a scenario could disproportionately affect companies that are innovative or operating in emerging sectors, potentially stifling their growth and access to capital.
Furthermore, the BPI’s concerns about MSCI’s methodology could signal a broader trend in how traditional financial institutions and index providers approach new asset classes and evolving business models. While the desire to maintain index integrity and to focus on operating businesses is understandable, the BPI’s critique highlights the risk of traditional frameworks being applied inflexibly to novel economic activities, potentially leading to unintended consequences and market distortions.
The debate also touches upon the role of index providers as de facto gatekeepers for market access and investment flows. MSCI, like other major index providers, wields considerable influence over which companies are readily investable by a vast segment of the global market. The transparency and fairness of their rule-making processes are therefore paramount.
MSCI has stated that it received feedback on its proposed changes through September 30, 2025. The firm anticipates announcing the outcomes of this consultation by October 16, 2025. Any resulting index adjustments are slated to be implemented as part of MSCI’s comprehensive November 2026 Index Review. The industry will be closely watching MSCI’s final decisions and the clarity of the reasoning provided, particularly in light of the BPI’s detailed analysis and the broader questions it raises about the future of index construction in an increasingly dynamic financial world.
MSCI was contacted by Cointelegraph for comment regarding the BPI’s research and concerns but had not provided a response prior to publication. The situation remains fluid, with significant implications for companies whose balance sheets may not fit traditional definitions of "operating assets" and for the investors who rely on the integrity and transparency of global market indexes.
