MSCI’s Digital-Asset Exclusion Could Destroy Bitcoin Innovation: Strategy’s Bold Stand!

by

Strategy Inc. warns that MSCI’s plan to expel digital-asset-centric companies from major indexes may have catastrophic effects, potentially distorting global markets, stifling bitcoin-driven innovation, and triggering a veritable storm of investment chaos. Who knew indexes could be so controversial?

Strategy Argues MSCI Digital-Asset Policy Misrepresents Bitcoin Treasury Models

On the 10th of December, Strategy Inc. (Nasdaq: MSTR), a company known for its bold commitment to bitcoin-treasury and enterprise analytics, sent a letter to the MSCI Equity Index Committee with an impassioned objection to MSCI’s decision to exclude digital-asset-heavy firms from its global indexes. Strategy made it clear that such a move would not only undermine innovation but also misrepresent the dynamic and complex world of digital-asset treasury companies.

Michael Saylor, the charismatic executive chairman and founder of Strategy, took to the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) to share his dismay:

Strategy has submitted its response to MSCI’s consultation on digital asset treasury companies. Index standards should be neutral, consistent, and reflective of global market evolution. I mean, come on, we’re not in the 20th century anymore!

The letter, signed by Saylor and Strategy President & CEO Phong Le, argued that MSCI’s proposal fundamentally misunderstood the business models of Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs) like Strategy. “DATs don’t just sit on their bitcoin like a squirrel hoarding acorns for winter,” the letter quipped. “They actively deploy bitcoin through treasury operations, capital-markets strategies, and structured credit instruments. It’s not passive investing, folks.”

In what could only be described as a delightful jab at MSCI’s arbitrary threshold, Strategy called the proposed 50% digital-asset concentration limit “discriminatory, arbitrary, and utterly unworkable.” As if the financial world is full of predictable, cookie-cutter companies-oh wait, it isn’t. “Concentrated asset positions are routine in other sectors like oil, mining, real estate, and energy infrastructure,” they pointed out. “Why pick on us?”

Further, Strategy warned that the proposal could create instability in MSCI’s indexes by causing companies to unpredictably shift in and out due to the clash between GAAP and IFRS accounting standards. Predictability? Ha, good luck with that.

According to the letter, the proposal could end up undermining MSCI’s neutrality by injecting policy judgments into index construction-essentially turning passive investment into a partisan minefield. The authors cited the $15 trillion passive-investment ecosystem that would likely suffer significant upheaval if the proposal moves forward, along with billions in forced outflows from affected companies.

Saylor and Le weren’t about to go down quietly. They urged MSCI to either withdraw the proposal or extend the consultation, emphasizing that premature changes could stifle technological progress, distort market incentives, and leave U.S. innovators out in the cold. In their final remarks, they declared:

We urge MSCI to reject the proposal. It is based on a broad misunderstanding of DATs and would impose arbitrary, unworkable conditions that would not only harm innovation but also damage the reputation of MSCI’s indexes. Moreover, it directly conflicts with national priorities for fostering innovation in digital assets. In short, a disaster in the making.

FAQ ⏰

  • What is Strategy Inc. opposing in MSCI’s proposal?
    Strategy opposes MSCI’s plan to remove digital-asset-heavy firms from global indexes. It’s like banning the cool kids from the club.
  • Why does Strategy argue the 50% threshold is flawed?
    Strategy calls the threshold discriminatory and unworkable, as other sectors routinely deal with concentrated positions without such restrictions. Talk about a double standard.
  • How could MSCI’s proposal affect passive-investment markets?
    Analysts warn it could cause chaos in the $15 trillion ecosystem, triggering forced outflows that no one asked for. It’s like shaking a hornet’s nest for fun.
  • What broader risks does Strategy cite regarding U.S. competitiveness?
    The rule could undermine U.S. efforts to support bitcoin innovation, ultimately weakening the U.S.’s leadership in emerging financial technologies. We need to keep the edge, not give it away.

Read More

2025-12-10 20:50