As MSCI considers excluding digital-asset heavy firms from its benchmarks, Strategy is engaging directly with MSCI to argue that its stock (MSTR) should remain included — even amid warnings of billions in potential outflows.
Strategy entered the MSCI World and MSCI USA indexes in May 2024, after a surge in the value of Bitcoin and growing interest in crypto-treasury firm. That inclusion made Strategy one of the largest additions to MSCI World, and underscored growing institutional acceptance of companies holding bitcoin treasuries.
However, MSCI has opened a consultation looking at whether to exclude companies whose holdings are overwhelmingly cryptocurrency — so-called “digital-asset treasuries” (DATs). Strategy, with a large BTC-heavy balance sheet, falls under scrutiny. Analysts at JPMorgan Chase warn that removal from MSCI alone could trigger roughly USD 2.8 billion in passive-fund outflows, and up to USD 8.8 billion if other index providers follow suit.
MSCI exclusion: implications and what to watch
Facing this pressure, Strategy’s founder Michael Saylor says the company is “engaging” with MSCI to make its case. Saylor argues that Strategy is not a passive fund or trust — it’s a publicly traded operating company with a substantial software business base (reportedly around USD 500 million) and a unique treasury strategy using bitcoin as productive capital. He contends that classifying Strategy simply as a crypto-treasury would misrepresent its business model and that volatility tied to Bitcoin does not disqualify it as a legitimate operating company.
If Strategy is excluded, many passive funds and ETFs that track MSCI indexes might be forced to sell MSTR — potentially creating a sharp drop in its share price and liquidity. Such outflows could also dampen appetite for other crypto-treasury firms, reduce access to capital, and make future fundraising or debt issuance more costly for Strategy.
The debate around Strategy’s inclusion in MSCI encapsulates a broader challenge: traditional financial benchmarks grappling with companies whose assets are crypto-based. The outcome could reshape how “digital-asset” firms are treated by index providers — with ripple effects across institutional investing, valuation of crypto-treasury firms, and the future of corporate Bitcoin strategies.
