Global index provider MSCI has launched a consultation examining whether companies holding substantial cryptocurrency reserves should remain eligible for inclusion in its premier equity benchmarks. The proposal specifically targets so-called “Digital Asset Treasury Companies” (DATs)—firms whose primary business strategy revolves around accumulating Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies rather than generating operational revenue through traditional business activities.
At the center of this controversy sits Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) , the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holder with approximately 386,700 BTC valued at over $36 billion, depending on market fluctuations. The company’s aggressive Bitcoin acquisition strategy, pioneered by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, has transformed it from a traditional enterprise software firm into what many now view as a leveraged Bitcoin investment vehicle.
The MSCI Consultation Framework
MSCI’s consultation, which commenced in October and remains open through December 31, centers on a deceptively simple question: Should companies whose digital asset holdings exceed 50% of total assets continue qualifying for inclusion in the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes?
The index provider’s preliminary assessment suggests that many institutional investors view these crypto-treasury firms as resembling investment funds or holding companies rather than traditional operating businesses. MSCI’s existing index methodology generally excludes investment vehicles, maintaining that equity indexes should represent companies generating value through operational activities rather than passive asset accumulation.
Timeline for Decision:
-
Consultation Period: October through December 31
-
Final Decision Announcement: January 15, 2026
-
Implementation Date: February 2026 (if exclusions proceed)
-
Companies Under Review: Approximately 38 firms including Strategy, Riot Platforms , Marathon Digital , and Sharplink Gaming
The three-month consultation window allows institutional investors, fund managers, and affected companies to submit feedback influencing MSCI’s ultimate classification determination. However, early indicators suggest substantial support exists among the investment community for treating crypto-treasury companies as investment vehicles rather than operational enterprises.
JPMorgan’s Warning: Billions in Forced Selling
Investment bank JPMorgan Chase released analysis suggesting that Strategy’s potential removal from MSCI indexes could trigger massive forced selling by passive investment vehicles, creating cascading effects throughout both traditional equity and cryptocurrency markets.
JPMorgan’s Projections:
MSCI Exclusion Alone: If MSCI removes Strategy from its indexes, approximately $2.8 billion in passive fund outflows would result as index-tracking ETFs and mutual funds mechanically rebalance portfolios to match updated benchmark compositions.
Cascading Index Provider Impact: Should other major index providers—including S&P Dow Jones Indices , FTSE Russell , and Nasdaq —adopt similar exclusion policies, total forced selling could reach $8.8 billion to $11.6 billion.
The bank’s analysts noted that nearly $9 billion of Strategy’s current market capitalization sits in passive index-tracking funds, meaning any exclusion decision would immediately eliminate a substantial portion of the company’s institutional investor base.
Why Index Inclusion Matters for Strategy
Strategy’s presence in major equity indexes has provided a critical indirect pathway for traditional investors seeking Bitcoin exposure without directly purchasing cryptocurrency. Institutional investors subject to regulatory constraints preventing direct crypto holdings, as well as retail investors accessing the market through 401(k) retirement accounts or pension funds, have gained Bitcoin exposure simply by holding index-tracking products containing Strategy shares.
This “backdoor Bitcoin exposure” mechanism has proven enormously valuable, enabling billions in capital to flow toward cryptocurrency markets through familiar, regulated equity investment vehicles. Index exclusion would sever this connection, forcing institutional capital to either exit Bitcoin exposure entirely or navigate the more complex landscape of dedicated cryptocurrency investment products.
The Valuation Pressure Mechanism
JPMorgan analysts argue that Strategy’s recent stock price underperformance relative to Bitcoin stems less from cryptocurrency market weakness and more from mounting anxiety about potential index exclusion.
Market-Implied Net Asset Value (mNAV) Collapse:
Strategy’s mNAV ratio—comparing the company’s enterprise value to the per-share value of its Bitcoin holdings—has compressed dramatically from a peak premium of 2.7x to approximately 1.1x. This means Strategy’s stock now trades barely above the value of the Bitcoin it holds, representing a near-total evaporation of the premium investors previously paid for accessing Bitcoin through equity markets rather than direct cryptocurrency purchases.
The Dilution Dilemma: This premium compression eliminates Strategy’s primary strategic advantage. When the company’s stock traded at substantial premiums to its Bitcoin holdings (2-3x), it could issue new shares at elevated prices, use proceeds to purchase additional Bitcoin, and enhance existing shareholders’ per-share Bitcoin exposure without meaningful dilution. At parity valuations (1.0-1.1x), this mechanism breaks down—new share issuance to fund Bitcoin purchases now dilutes shareholders nearly one-for-one.
Stock Performance Context: Strategy shares have declined over 57% from all-time highs and approximately 40% in just the past month, substantially underperforming Bitcoin’s 22-30% decline over similar periods. This divergence strongly suggests that company-specific factors—particularly index exclusion concerns—drive the sell-off rather than general cryptocurrency market weakness.
What Bitcoin Investors Should Understand
For individuals seeking to get Bitcoins or those already holding cryptocurrency, MSCI’s consultation carries significant indirect implications beyond Strategy’s corporate fortunes.
The Corporate Bitcoin Narrative Under Pressure
Strategy’s pioneering approach—leveraging traditional capital markets to accumulate massive Bitcoin reserves—has inspired numerous companies to adopt similar treasury strategies. The implicit promise: corporations could provide liquid, regulated access to Bitcoin for institutional investors unable or unwilling to navigate cryptocurrency exchanges directly, while their shares trading at premiums to underlying Bitcoin holdings would enable value creation through the equity-to-Bitcoin conversion arbitrage.
MSCI’s potential exclusion decision challenges this entire model. If index providers classify crypto-treasury companies as investment vehicles rather than operating businesses, the regulatory arbitrage advantage disappears. Institutional investors seeking Bitcoin exposure would need to choose between:
-
Direct cryptocurrency purchases through regulated custodians and exchanges
-
Dedicated Bitcoin ETFs like those from BlackRock and Fidelity (which trade closer to net asset value without premiums)
-
Traditional mining companies that generate Bitcoin through mining operations rather than market purchases
Implications for Bitcoin Price Discovery
The multi-billion-dollar forced selling scenario outlined by JPMorgan raises questions about Bitcoin market impact. While $8.8 billion in Strategy stock outflows wouldn’t directly translate to equivalent Bitcoin selling (since passive funds sell Strategy shares to other investors rather than forcing the company to liquidate Bitcoin), secondary effects could create downward pressure:
Reduced Institutional Demand: Index exclusion would eliminate one of the primary channels through which passive institutional capital flows toward Bitcoin-correlated assets. Future purchases that would have occurred through automatic index rebalancing would cease.
Confidence Spillover: Visible struggles at the world’s most prominent corporate Bitcoin holder could dampen enthusiasm among other companies considering similar treasury strategies, potentially reducing corporate Bitcoin demand—a significant narrative driver for those looking to get Bitcoins based on institutional adoption trends.
Capital Market Constraints: If Strategy’s stock premium remains compressed at near-parity levels, the company’s ability to raise capital for additional Bitcoin purchases diminishes substantially. Strategy has acquired its massive Bitcoin holdings primarily through debt issuance and equity offerings—mechanisms that become less attractive at current valuations.
Michael Saylor’s Defense: “We’re an Operating Company”
Strategy founder and Executive Chairman Michael Saylor has pushed back against MSCI’s classification concerns, emphasizing that the company maintains substantial enterprise software operations beyond its Bitcoin treasury activities.
Saylor argued that Strategy should not be classified as a fund, trust, or holding company, pointing to continued software licensing revenue and operational business lines that predated the company’s Bitcoin strategy. He noted that Nasdaq recently added Strategy to the Nasdaq-100 Index , suggesting at least one major index provider views the firm as a legitimate technology company rather than an investment vehicle.
However, the counterargument remains powerful: Strategy’s market valuation correlates almost entirely with its Bitcoin holdings rather than software business performance. The company’s enterprise value fluctuates in near-lockstep with Bitcoin prices, and the software operations generate relatively modest revenue compared to the multi-billion-dollar cryptocurrency treasury.
Broader Industry Implications
The 38 Companies Under Review: MSCI’s preliminary list includes not just Strategy but approximately 38 digital asset treasury companies spanning various cryptocurrency focus areas:
-
Bitcoin Miners: Riot Platforms , Marathon Digital , and similar firms that accumulate Bitcoin through mining operations
-
Multi-Asset Treasury Companies: Firms holding Ethereum , Solana , and other cryptocurrencies beyond Bitcoin
-
Gaming and Entertainment: Sharplink Gaming and others integrating crypto treasuries into their business models
Market Capitalization Impact: The combined market value of public companies holding significant corporate digital asset treasuries has declined nearly 50% from recent peaks, with MSCI’s consultation announcement contributing materially to this sell-off.
What Happens Next: The January 15 Decision
All eyes turn toward MSCI’s January 15, 2026 announcement date. The index provider will release its final determination after reviewing stakeholder feedback submitted through December 31.
Potential Outcomes:
Full Exclusion: MSCI implements the 50% digital asset threshold, removing Strategy and all similar companies from global investable market indexes. This triggers the $2.8 billion in forced selling from MSCI-tracking funds, with potential cascade effects if other index providers follow.
Modified Criteria: MSCI adopts nuanced classification rules distinguishing between passive treasury companies and firms with substantial operational businesses alongside crypto holdings. This could preserve Strategy’s inclusion if MSCI deems software operations sufficient.
Status Quo Maintenance: MSCI decides against implementing new restrictions, maintaining current inclusion policies. This outcome appears increasingly unlikely given preliminary feedback suggesting investor support for stricter classifications.
Phased Implementation: MSCI announces future exclusions but provides extended transition periods (6-12 months) allowing companies to adjust balance sheet compositions or enabling markets to absorb changes gradually.
Implications for Those Looking to Get Bitcoins
For individuals seeking to get Bitcoins or increase cryptocurrency holdings, MSCI’s consultation highlights the maturation and institutionalization of digital asset markets:
Regulatory Scrutiny Intensifies: As cryptocurrency infiltrates traditional financial infrastructure through corporate treasury strategies and index inclusion, regulatory bodies and market gatekeepers increasingly scrutinize these connections. Classification questions—is a Bitcoin-holding company an operating business or investment fund?—will shape how easily traditional investors access crypto exposure.
Direct Purchase Advantages: Those comfortable navigating cryptocurrency exchanges to get Bitcoins directly avoid the complexities and potential premiums (or discounts) inherent in equity-market proxies like Strategy. The company’s mNAV compression from 2.7x to 1.1x demonstrates that indirect exposure methods can trade at substantial variance to underlying cryptocurrency values.
ETF Alternative: Dedicated Bitcoin ETFs approved by regulators in early 2024 provide institutional-quality custody and regulated exposure while trading much closer to net asset value (typically within 0.1-0.5% of spot Bitcoin prices) compared to corporate proxies.
A Pivotal Moment for Corporate Bitcoin Strategy
MSCI’s consultation represents far more than a technical index classification decision—it constitutes a fundamental test of whether corporate Bitcoin treasury strategies can maintain legitimacy within traditional financial market structures. For Strategy, the company that pioneered using equity markets to accumulate cryptocurrency at scale, the stakes could not be higher. Potential exclusion from major indexes would eliminate billions in passive institutional demand, compress already-thin valuation premiums, and constrain future capital-raising capacity.
For the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem and those seeking to get Bitcoins, the consultation highlights ongoing tension between digital asset innovation and traditional financial market norms. As Bitcoin matures from speculative asset to institutional holding, questions about appropriate classification, valuation methodologies, and regulatory treatment will increasingly shape how effectively cryptocurrency integrates into mainstream investment portfolios.
The January 15 decision will reverberate throughout both equity and cryptocurrency markets, potentially establishing precedents that influence how future companies approach Bitcoin treasury strategies and how investors access cryptocurrency exposure through traditional financial instruments. Whether MSCI ultimately excludes crypto-treasury companies or maintains current policies, the consultation itself signals that the era of frictionless integration between cryptocurrency accumulation and traditional equity market participation may be ending—replaced by more rigorous classification standards that distinguish genuine operating businesses from vehicles primarily serving as Bitcoin proxies.
