A dispute has emerged between Strategy and index giant MSCI over how companies with large Bitcoin positions should be treated inside major equity benchmarks.
According to Strategy, the index provider’s latest consultation risks damaging market integrity and mischaracterizing how corporates use digital assets.
Key Takeaways
Strategy says MSCI’s digital asset exclusion logic misunderstands how corporate Bitcoin treasuries function.
The firm argues the proposed threshold would destabilize indexes due to asset price volatility and inconsistent accounting.
Strategy claims the policy would undermine national efforts to advance digital asset adoption.
Strategy said it chose to respond publicly because it believes MSCI has conflated Bitcoin treasuries with dedicated investment vehicles. The firm stressed that the Bitcoin on its balance sheet is not a passive stash but an extension of its business model — tied to liquidity management, product innovation, and long-term positioning.
This argument echoes comments made in recent months by Michael Saylor, who has repeatedly described Bitcoin as a strategic corporate reserve rather than a speculative sideline. Strategy reinforced that message in its letter, underscoring that the company remains an operating software and analytics enterprise, not merely a digital asset accumulator.
Volatility-Based Inclusion Rules Seen as Destabilizing
At the center of Strategy’s challenge is MSCI’s proposal to exclude firms whose balance sheets exceed 50% exposure to digital assets. Strategy called the threshold “without technical basis,” suggesting it would cause indexes to behave erratically because crypto prices move at a pace traditional accounting systems are not built to absorb.
If applied, Strategy argued, index composition could change suddenly as asset prices swing — forcing investors to adjust holdings rapidly and arbitrarily. The firm warned that such instability would contradict MSCI’s stated principles around transparent and predictable index construction.
Disagreement Extends to Policy Direction
Beyond mechanics, Strategy positioned the consultation as being at odds with regulatory currents. It pointed to federal initiatives encouraging digital asset experimentation, indicating that MSCI’s exclusion logic could undercut national priorities around innovation and market integration.
With U.S. authorities pushing for clearer digital asset frameworks and encouraging corporate adoption, Strategy suggested that MSCI’s approach risks sending the opposite signal — particularly to companies exploring Bitcoin as a treasury asset.
Industry Eyes Outcome as Index Firms Adapt to Crypto
The exchange marks one of the more visible confrontations between a Bitcoin-heavy corporation and an index services provider. While MSCI has not finalized its decision, Strategy’s firm language highlights growing tension over how traditional finance tools accommodate companies holding digital assets.
Analysts expect close industry attention on MSCI’s next actions, as its benchmarks influence how trillions of dollars are allocated across global markets.
