Community Trust ScoreVerified
The Bitcoin Policy Institute isn’t staying quiet. BPI fired back at MSCI this week over a proposal that could boot companies like Strategy and Metaplanet from some of the world’s most widely tracked market indexes — and the stakes are big.
Why It Matters
This dispute highlights the growing tension between traditional financial institutions and the emerging cryptocurrency ecosystem, particularly as regulatory scrutiny increases. The potential exclusion of companies like Strategy and Metaplanet from major indexes could significantly impact their market accessibility and investor perception, further shaping the narrative around the legitimacy and integration of digital assets within mainstream finance. As the debate unfolds, it underscores the broader implications for how crypto-related businesses are evaluated and categorized in the financial landscape.
MSCI’s review, framed as a broader look at so-called “non-operating companies,” has been in the works since August. But BPI’s paper, titled “Wall Street’s Invisible Committee,” makes it pretty clear that the think tank sees the whole thing as tied directly to digital asset treasury firms. MSCI first floated the idea of excluding these companies back in 2025, then paused after pushback. The August announcement repackaged the question — same destination, different road. Under the proposal, companies would face five financial tests based on their operating assets. A simulation MSCI ran found that Strategy, Metaplanet, and Yellow Cake — a uranium investment firm, notably not a crypto company — could all get cut under that framework.
Not a small thing.
The $2.8 Billion Outflow Risk
JPMorgan put a number on it back in 2025: if Strategy alone gets excluded from MSCI indexes, it could face roughly $2.8 billion in forced outflows. That’s because funds tracking MSCI benchmarks would have to dump shares in any company that no longer qualifies. Passive investing has grown enormously over the past decade, and index inclusion is basically oxygen for institutional capital flows. Lose it, and the selling pressure can be severe and fast. Metaplanet, the Japanese firm that has been aggressively accumulating Bitcoin on its balance sheet, faces the same cliff edge.
MSCI accepted public feedback on the proposal until September 30. The index provider plans to announce its decision by October 16, with any changes set to take effect in the November 2026 Index Review. MSCI didn’t comment before the report came out.
BPI’s core complaint isn’t just about crypto firms. The think tank’s paper takes direct aim at the term “operating assets” itself — a phrase that doesn’t have a standardized definition under US GAAP or IFRS. That’s a real problem. If MSCI gets to decide what counts as an “operating asset” without a clear accounting standard backing it up, the index provider ends up with enormous discretionary power over which companies stay in and which get shown the door. BPI called it out as a potential source of inconsistency, one that could hit firms across industries, not just digital asset treasury companies.
Broader Industry Concerns Beyond Crypto
BPI pushed further than just defending Bitcoin treasury companies. The paper argued that mining operations, satellite networks, and other capital-heavy industries could find themselves in the same bind. These are businesses that often need massive upfront investment and spend years burning cash before revenue arrives. If MSCI applies its “non-operating company” tests broadly, some of those firms might also lose index eligibility — even though they’re clearly real, operating businesses by any common-sense definition.
It’s a fair point. Capital intensity doesn’t equal inactivity. And the concern is that a vague standard, applied by a single private body with no obligation to publish its reasoning in full, creates a kind of invisible gatekeeping. BPI’s paper title — “Wall Street’s Invisible Committee” — pretty much says it all.
The think tank also flagged that MSCI had already imposed interim restrictions since January, limiting the addition of new digital asset treasury firms to its indexes while the broader review was being developed. So the pressure on these companies wasn’t new. It’s been building quietly for months.
BPI’s broader ask is straightforward: MSCI should publish transparent, reproducible criteria so that any company, regardless of industry or business model, can understand how it will be evaluated. Right now, per BPI, that clarity isn’t there. The consultation document itself, BPI argued, was clearly linked to the earlier push to exclude digital asset treasury companies — which raises questions about whether the “non-operating company” framing is genuinely neutral or just a wider net cast for the same catch.
Feedback from the public consultation closed September 30. The financial sector is watching what MSCI does next. Funds with exposure to Strategy or Metaplanet probably want clarity fast — the November 2026 Index Review isn’t far off, and portfolio managers don’t love surprises.
Yellow Cake’s potential exclusion is worth watching too. It’s a uranium investment vehicle, not a crypto play, and its presence on MSCI’s simulation list suggests the proposed tests really could sweep in companies well outside the digital asset space. Whether MSCI narrows the criteria before October 16 or holds firm is unclear. No details on internal deliberations have surfaced publicly.
The decision lands in roughly two weeks.
Hub: Bitcoin price, news, and analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
What companies could be excluded from MSCI indexes under the proposal?
MSCI’s simulation found that Strategy, Metaplanet, and Yellow Cake could all be excluded under the proposed “non-operating company” framework based on five financial tests tied to operating assets.
How much money could Strategy lose if dropped from MSCI indexes?
JPMorgan estimated in 2025 that Strategy could face approximately $2.8 billion in outflows if it is removed from MSCI indexes, as funds tracking those benchmarks would be required to sell their shares.
