The crypto world is holding its breath as a major index provider considers a move that could shake up the landscape for Bitcoin holding firms. MSCI, the giant behind some of the most influential global indices, is proposing rules that might boot companies like Strategy and Metaplanet out of its market benchmarks. At first glance, this sounds like a technical update to index criteria. But dig deeper, and you’ll find a clash between old-world finance and the new digital economy—where holding assets like Bitcoin isn’t just a bet, but a business model.
A New Benchmark for 'Operational' Companies
MSCI’s latest proposal isn’t about crypto per se. It’s about labeling companies that ‘accumulate and hold non-operating assets’ as ineligible for inclusion in its investable market indexes. The criteria? A two-step process. First, check if a company’s operating assets exceed 50% of total assets. If not, apply five financial ratios related to cash flow, expense intensity, and capital dependence. Fail four out of five, and you’re out. The kicker? This framework, while not naming Bitcoin firms explicitly, seems tailor-made for them. Strategy and Metaplanet, which hold hundreds of thousands of BTC, would likely fail the test. But here’s the thing: this isn’t just about Bitcoin. It’s about how traditional finance views passive asset accumulation as a red flag.
Personally, I think this reflects a deep-seated bias in financial markets. For decades, companies that generate revenue through operations—like manufacturing or tech firms—have been the gold standard. But what about companies that buy gold, real estate, or even bonds? Those are also ‘non-operating’ assets. Yet, we’ve never seen indices exclude gold miners or REITs for holding physical assets. So why is Bitcoin different? The answer lies in perception. Crypto is still seen as speculative, not a legitimate store of value. This exclusion rule is less about financial logic and more about reinforcing stigma against digital assets.
The Unspoken War on Passive Income Models
What makes this particularly fascinating is the implication for passive income strategies. Strategy and Metaplanet aren’t just holding Bitcoin—they’re building businesses around it. Their revenue comes from appreciation, not operations. But MSCI’s rules treat this as a liability, not a strategy. This feels like a missed opportunity for innovation. Imagine a world where indices reward companies that diversify risk through long-term asset holding, not just those that churn out quarterly earnings. Yet, MSCI’s approach suggests that financial gatekeepers still equate ‘operational’ with ‘legitimate.’
A detail that I find especially interesting is the contrast with previous MSCI consultations. In 2025, the firm proposed a direct exclusion for crypto firms holding 50%+ of assets in digital assets. That move triggered market chaos and industry backlash, leading to its deferral. Now, the new rules are more subtle—using vague terms like ‘non-operating’ to target the same companies. It’s a masterclass in bureaucratic obfuscation. By avoiding explicit mentions of crypto, MSCI sidesteps direct criticism while still achieving its goal: marginalizing Bitcoin firms from mainstream indices.
The Ripple Effects on Investors and Markets
If applied, this rule could have seismic effects. ETFs and passive funds tracking MSCI indexes would suddenly exclude major Bitcoin players, potentially triggering sell-offs. But the bigger question is: who benefits? Traditional investors who favor operational companies might see this as a win. But it’s a lose-lose for the crypto ecosystem. By pushing Bitcoin firms out of indices, MSCI risks alienating a generation of investors who see digital assets as a cornerstone of their portfolios. This isn’t just about indexing—it’s about shaping the future of finance.
What many people don’t realize is that index inclusion isn’t just a badge of honor. It’s a liquidity multiplier. When a company is in a major index, it attracts institutional buyers, lowers trading costs, and boosts visibility. Excluding Strategy and Metaplanet would effectively starve them of these advantages, forcing them to rely on retail investors or niche markets. In my opinion, this is a strategic move to keep crypto in the shadows, where it’s easier to regulate and control.
The Road Ahead: Will This Rule Stick?
MSCI has until September 30 to gather feedback, with a decision likely by October 16. But even if the rule passes, it won’t take effect until 2026. That gives the crypto industry time to rally. Could we see a counter-movement? Maybe new indexes tailored for digital assets, or pressure on MSCI to revise its criteria. The real test will be how the market reacts. If Bitcoin’s price remains resilient despite this threat, it could signal that institutional investors are no longer swayed by traditional gatekeepers.
This raises a deeper question: Is the financial system ready for a world where holding assets like Bitcoin is as normal as holding gold or real estate? Or will we keep treating crypto as an outlier, despite its growing role in global portfolios? The answer might shape the next decade of finance. One thing is certain: MSCI’s proposal isn’t just about indexing. It’s a battle over the very definition of what constitutes a ‘real’ company in the 21st century.
