• Strategy says MSCI’s proposal mislabels Bitcoin firms and unfairly targets one asset class.
• JPMorgan warns index removal could trigger up to $9B in forced selling across markets.
• Debate grows over whether Bitcoin exposure belongs in ETFs or Bitcoin-treasury companies.

MicroStrategy pushed back against Morgan Stanley Capital International’s (MSCI) proposal to remove Bitcoin-heavy companies from major equity indexes, arguing the rule wrongly treated them like investment funds.

The response came after JPMorgan warned that the move could trigger billions in forced selling, putting Strategy at the center of a broader debate over how Bitcoin exposure should be managed in public markets.

Sponsored

Sponsored

Strategy Defends Its Operating Model

Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) issued a statement on Wednesday arguing that MSCI’s proposal fundamentally misrepresented how Bitcoin-heavy companies operated.

In the 12-page letter signed by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and President Phong Le, the firm maintained that it was an operating business that used its Bitcoin reserves to issue credit instruments and raise capital.

It argued that this approach differed fundamentally from a passive vehicle designed to track a single asset.

“We urge MSCI to reject the proposal. It rests on a broad mischaracterization of DATs and would impose arbitrary, unworkable conditions that would stifle innovation, damage the reputation of MSCI’s indices, and conflict with national priorities,” it read. 

Strategy also stated that the proposed 50% digital-asset threshold was discriminatory. It argued that the rule singled it out while leaving similarly concentrated sectors, such as oil or real estate, untouched.

Sponsored

Sponsored

Consultation Puts Bitcoin Treasuries at Risk

The controversy began in October, when MSCI launched a consultation on how to classify digital asset treasuries (DATs) within its index methodology. The proposed 50% threshold immediately put Strategy and other Bitcoin-focused firms under review.

In November, a JPMorgan analysis estimated that Strategy could face approximately $2.8 billion in forced-selling pressure if MSCI were to remove it alone, and potentially up to $8–9 billion if other providers followed the same approach.

These projections fueled public concern and renewed attention on how Bitcoin-treasury companies should be classified across the index ecosystem. 

For Strategy, the implications extended beyond index eligibility. 

Exclusion could reduce liquidity and raise the company’s cost of capital. It could also narrow the role of corporate treasuries as a pathway for investors seeking indirect Bitcoin exposure.

For investors more broadly, the episode underscored a structural question about whether Bitcoin exposure should primarily reside within regulated exchange-traded funds or continue to exist through publicly traded companies that hold digital assets on their balance sheets.

MSCI’s consultation remains open through December 31, with market participants closely watching as the index provider weighs its final decision.

Disclaimer