Index providers are being forced to confront a new problem they were never designed for: companies whose value is driven less by what they produce and more by what they hold.
Few firms embody that tension more clearly than Michael Saylor’s Strategy. The company remains embedded in some of the world’s most influential equity benchmarks, even as its identity continues to drift away from anything resembling a traditional operating business.
Key takeaways
Strategy kept its Nasdaq 100 position despite its Bitcoin-centric balance sheet
MSCI is reconsidering whether digital asset treasury companies belong in its indexes
A removal could force large passive fund sell-offs
This month delivered a mixed message for investors. On one hand, Strategy emerged unscathed from Nasdaq’s latest reshuffle, keeping its position among the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the exchange. On the other, its future inside MSCI’s global benchmarks remains unresolved, with a decision expected early next year.
The contrast highlights a deeper disagreement among index providers over how Bitcoin-heavy balance sheets should be treated. Nasdaq appears comfortable, for now, classifying Strategy alongside technology companies. MSCI, however, is openly questioning whether firms built around digital asset treasuries belong in mainstream equity indexes at all.
A Business Model That Defies Old Labels
Strategy’s evolution has been dramatic. What began as an enterprise software company now functions, in market terms, as a highly leveraged gateway to Bitcoin exposure. Since 2020, the firm has leaned into aggressive accumulation of the cryptocurrency, turning its stock into a near real-time reflection of Bitcoin’s price movements.
That transformation has fueled both admiration and skepticism. Supporters see Strategy as a pioneering capital allocation experiment. Critics argue that the company increasingly resembles an investment vehicle, blurring the distinction between corporate equity and asset-backed exposure.
Why the MSCI Decision Matters More
MSCI’s pending ruling carries far greater consequences than Nasdaq’s annual rebalancing. Its indexes underpin trillions of dollars in passive investment strategies worldwide. If digital asset treasury companies are deemed ineligible, funds tracking those benchmarks could be forced to sell – regardless of their views on Bitcoin or Strategy itself.
Analysts estimate that exclusion could trigger more than $1.5 billion in outflows tied to Strategy alone, potentially compounding recent weakness in the stock, which remains sharply below last year’s highs.
Industry Pushback Grows
Strategy has not stayed silent. The company has formally opposed MSCI’s review, warning that redefining eligibility criteria midstream risks harming investors who rely on stable, rules-based index construction.
Asset manager Bitwise has echoed those concerns, arguing that introducing subjective judgments about business models undermines the mechanical neutrality index providers are meant to uphold.
A Precedent in the Making
The debate surrounding Strategy is no longer just about one company. It is becoming a test case for how financial markets adapt to firms whose core strategy revolves around digital assets rather than conventional revenue generation.
For now, Strategy remains safely inside the Nasdaq 100, even as other well-known names have been rotated out in favor of companies from entirely different sectors. But with MSCI’s verdict approaching, the question is no longer whether Strategy fits neatly into existing frameworks – it’s whether those frameworks themselves need to change.
