The game concerning the development of digital asset treasury companies (DAT) is still ongoing.
Article author: KarenZ
Source: Foresight News
In October, global index provider MSCI proposed to exclude companies with digital asset holdings accounting for 50% or more of total assets from its global investable market index. This move directly threatens the market position of digital asset treasury companies represented by Strategy and could even rewrite the capital flow of the entire digital asset treasury company sector.
According to statistics from Bitcoin for Corporations, 39 companies may be excluded from the MSCI Global Investable Market Index. JPMorgan analysts previously warned that the exclusion of just Strategy could lead to nearly $2.8 billion in passive fund outflows, and if other index providers follow suit with this rule, it could result in outflows of up to $8.8 billion.
Currently, the consultation period for MSCI's proposal will last until December 31, 2025, with a final conclusion expected to be announced before January 15, 2026. If there are adjustments, they will be formally implemented in the index review process in February 2026.
In the face of this urgent situation, Strategy submitted a strongly worded 12-page open letter to the MSCI Stock Index Committee on December 10, jointly signed by the company's Executive Chairman and Founder Michael Saylor and President and CEO Phong Le, clearly expressing strong opposition to the proposal. The letter states: 'This proposal is seriously misleading and will have profound and destructive consequences for the interests of global investors and the development of the digital asset industry. We strongly urge MSCI to withdraw this plan completely.'
The four core arguments of Strategy
Digital assets are a revolutionary foundational technology reshaping the financial system
Strategy believes that MSCI's proposal underestimates the strategic value of Bitcoin and other digital assets. Since Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin 16 years ago, this digital asset has gradually grown into a key component of the global economy, with a current market capitalization of approximately $1.85 trillion.
In Strategy's view, digital assets are by no means simple financial tools; they are a fundamental technological innovation capable of reshaping the global financial system—companies investing in Bitcoin-related infrastructure are building a new financial ecosystem, which is no different from leading companies that deeply invest in single emerging technologies throughout history.
Just as Standard Oil in the 19th century focused on oil well extraction and AT&T in the 20th century fully built the telephone network, these companies laid a solid foundation for subsequent economic transformation through forward-looking investments in core infrastructure, ultimately becoming industry benchmarks. Strategy believes that companies focusing on digital assets today are repeating the path of 'technology pioneers' and should not be simply negated by traditional index rules.
DAT is an operating enterprise rather than a passive fund
This is the core argument of Strategy's defense—the digital asset treasury companies (DAT) are operating enterprises with complete business models, not merely passive investment funds holding Bitcoin. Although Strategy currently holds more than 600,000 Bitcoins, its core value does not rely on Bitcoin price fluctuations but rather on designing and launching unique 'digital credit' tools to create sustainable returns for shareholders.
Specifically, the 'digital credit' tools issued by Strategy cover various types of preferred shares with fixed dividend rates, floating dividend rates, different priority levels, and credit protection clauses. After raising funds through the sale of these tools, they are used to increase Bitcoin holdings. As long as the long-term investment return of Bitcoin exceeds the financing cost measured in USD by Strategy, it can bring stable returns to shareholders and clients. Strategy emphasizes that this 'active operation + asset appreciation' model fundamentally differs from the passive management logic of traditional investment funds or ETFs and should be regarded as a normal operating enterprise.
At the same time, Strategy also questioned in the letter: Why are oil giants, real estate investment trusts (REITs), timber companies, etc., able to concentrate on a single category of assets but are not classified as investment funds and excluded from the index? Setting special restrictions only for digital asset companies is clearly inconsistent with industry fairness principles.
The 50% digital asset threshold is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unrealistic
Strategy points out that MSCI's proposal adopts discriminatory standards. Many large companies in traditional industries also hold a high concentration of a single asset class in their assets, including oil and gas companies, real estate investment trusts, timber companies, and electrical infrastructure companies. However, MSCI has set special exclusion standards only for digital asset companies, which constitutes a clear unfair treatment.
From the perspective of feasibility of implementation, this proposal also faces serious issues. Due to the extreme volatility of digital asset prices, the same company may repeatedly enter and exit the MSCI index within a few days due to changes in asset value, causing market chaos. In addition, differences in accounting standards (the treatment of digital assets under U.S. GAAP versus international IFRS standards) will lead to differential treatment of companies with the same business model based on their registration location.
Violating the principle of index neutrality, injecting policy bias
Strategy believes that MSCI's proposal is essentially a value judgment on a certain type of asset, violating the basic principle that index providers should remain neutral. MSCI claims to the market and regulators that its index provides 'comprehensive' coverage, aiming to reflect 'the evolution of the underlying stock market,' and should not make judgments about 'the merits or appropriateness of any market, company, strategy, or investment.'
By selectively excluding digital asset companies, MSCI is effectively making policy judgments on behalf of the market, which index providers should avoid.
Contrary to the U.S. digital asset strategy
Strategy emphasizes that this proposal conflicts with the strategic goal of the Trump administration to advance the leadership position of digital assets. The Trump administration signed an executive order in its first week to promote the growth of digital financial technology and established a strategic Bitcoin reserve aimed at making the United States the global leader in the digital asset space.
However, if MSCI's proposal is implemented, it will directly prevent long-term funds such as U.S. pensions and 401(k) plans from investing in digital asset companies, leading to billions of dollars in capital fleeing the industry, which will not only hinder the development of U.S. digital asset innovation companies but may also weaken the U.S.'s competitiveness in this strategic field, going against the government's established policy direction.
Strategy cites analysts' estimates that just Strategy alone may face up to $2.8 billion in stock passive liquidation due to MSCI's proposal. This not only harms Strategy itself but will also have a chilling effect on the entire digital asset ecosystem, potentially forcing Bitcoin mining companies to sell assets prematurely to adjust their asset structures, thus distorting the normal supply and demand relationship in the digital asset market.
The ultimate appeal of Strategy
Strategy raised two major demands in the open letter:
First, we hope MSCI will completely withdraw this exclusion proposal and allow the market to test the value of digital asset treasury companies (DAT) through free competition, so that the index can neutrally and faithfully reflect the development trend of the next generation of financial technology.
Secondly, if MSCI insists on 'special treatment' for digital asset companies, it should expand the consultation scope, extend the consultation time, and provide more adequate logical support to explain the rationality of the rules.
Strategy is not fighting alone
Strategy is not fighting alone. According to data from BitcoinTreasuries.NET, as of December 11, there are 208 publicly listed companies worldwide holding more than 1.07 million Bitcoins, exceeding 5% of the total Bitcoin supply, currently valued at approximately $100 billion.
Source: BitcoinTreasuries.NET
These digital asset treasury companies have become an important bridge for institutional adoption of cryptocurrencies, providing compliant indirect exposure for traditional financial institutions such as pension funds and endowment funds.
Previously, listed company Strive, which holds Bitcoin, suggested that MSCI should return the 'options' of digital asset companies to the market. A simple and direct solution is to create an 'exclusion of digital asset treasury companies' version of existing indices, such as the MSCI USA ex Digital Asset Treasuries Index and the MSCI ACWI ex Digital Asset Treasuries Index, allowing investors to choose tracking benchmarks through a transparent screening mechanism, thus preserving the integrity of the index while meeting the needs of different investors.
In addition, the industry organization Bitcoin for Corporations has initiated a joint initiative calling on MSCI to withdraw the digital asset proposal, arguing that classification should be based on the actual business model, financial performance, and operational characteristics of the company, rather than simply drawing a line based on asset ratios. According to the organization's official website, 309 companies or investors have signed the joint letter, including not only Strategy but also senior executives from well-known industry companies such as Strive, BitGo, Redwood Digital Group, 21MIL, Btc inc, and DeFi Development Corp, as well as many individual developers and investors.
Summary
The confrontation between Strategy and MSCI is essentially a fundamental debate about 'how emerging financial innovations integrate into traditional systems.' Digital asset treasury companies (DAT), as 'cross-border players' between traditional finance and the cryptocurrency world, are neither purely technology companies nor simple investment funds, but a new business model built on digital assets.
MSCI's proposal attempts to categorize these complex entities as 'investment funds' based on a '50% asset ratio' standard and exclude them from the index; however, Strategy insists that this simplification is a serious misunderstanding of their business nature and a deviation from the principle of index neutrality. As the decision date of January 15, 2026 approaches, the outcome of this game will not only determine the index 'entry qualifications' for several publicly listed companies holding Bitcoin, but will also delineate the critical 'survival boundaries' for the future position of the digital asset industry within the global traditional financial system.
