BPI challenges MSCI's 'hidden panel' regarding proposed regulations affecting Strategy and Metaplanet
According to a Bitcoin Policy Institute analysis, MSCI's suggested "non-operating company" criteria might exclude Strategy and Metaplanet from market indexes and could be connected to a previous cryptocurrency treasury assessment.
A research organization focused on Bitcoin policy has raised concerns about MSCI's methodology in crafting its most recent proposal to strengthen regulations for its market indexes, following the index provider's designation of firms such as Strategy and Metaplanet as potential "non-operating businesses" that could face removal from its benchmarks.
The index provider MSCI initially put forward a plan to exclude companies holding digital assets as treasury reserves from its worldwide indexes in 2025, yet abandoned this approach in January following significant opposition and announced it would instead conduct a more comprehensive examination of "non-operating companies." On Aug. 3, MSCI unveiled a more expansive proposal that could nonetheless result in the exclusion of Strategy and Metaplanet from its benchmark indexes.
Within a research document entitled Wall Street's Invisible Committee, the BPI highlighted metadata evidence indicating that the source presentation underlying MSCI's consultation document was saved in an internal directory designated for digital asset treasury companies. The BPI stated this discovery "warrants asking whether its broader language carried forward" MSCI's previous attempt to exclude companies managing digital asset treasuries.
According to the expanded proposal, MSCI would initially evaluate whether a given company possesses significant operating assets prior to implementing five supplementary financial criteria. MSCI's own modeling demonstrated that Strategy, Metaplanet and Yellow Cake, a uranium-focused investment firm, would face removal under the suggested framework.
The exclusion of cryptocurrency treasury companies such as Strategy or Metaplanet from MSCI's benchmark indexes could compel index-tracking funds to divest their holdings in these firms. During 2025, JPMorgan analysts projected that Strategy might experience approximately $2.8 billion in fund outflows should it be excluded from the indexes.
Cointelegraph reached out to MSCI for comment but had not received a response before publication.
BPI questions how MSCI defines an operating company
Following the withdrawal of its cryptocurrency-targeted proposal in January, MSCI maintained temporary limitations on impacted digital asset treasury firms, including restrictions on fresh additions to its benchmark indexes, during the development of the more comprehensive assessment.
According to MSCI, the new evaluation framework is designed to distinguish companies whose valuation derives predominantly from asset accumulation rather than from operations that generate revenue.
Within the research paper, the BPI additionally challenged MSCI's dependence on the concept of "operating assets," observing that this terminology does not represent a standardized category on balance sheets under US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or International Financial Reporting Standards.
The BPI contends that this approach could provide MSCI with considerable latitude in determining how it categorizes various assets including cash holdings, investment portfolios, ongoing construction initiatives, and strategic asset positions.
The BPI suggested the concern could reach beyond the cryptocurrency sector, maintaining that businesses requiring substantial capital such as mining operations or satellite infrastructure may maintain extensive asset holdings and depend on external capital for extended periods prior to producing revenue streams.
The organization urged MSCI to release more transparent and verifiable standards for establishing which companies meet the criteria for inclusion in its comprehensive market indexes.
MSCI accepted feedback through Sept. 30 and said it expects to announce the results on or before Oct. 16. Any resulting changes are proposed to take effect as part of its November 2026 Index Review.