MSCI Bitcoin Rule Returns, Putting Strategy and Metaplanet at Risk

A new proposal from MSCI is putting some of the world’s largest publicly traded Bitcoin treasury companies back under the spotlight, with Strategy and Metaplanet among the companies that could face removal from major global equity indexes.

The development comes months after MSCI abandoned a separate proposal that specifically targeted digital asset treasury companies. This time, however, the index provider is taking a broader approach aimed at companies whose businesses are considered heavily focused on holding non-operating assets.

That distinction could prove important for Strategy and Metaplanet, because the latest proposal does not specifically mention Bitcoin or cryptocurrency as the basis for exclusion.

MSCI’s earlier decision in January 2026 was to keep digital asset treasury companies in its indexes for the time being while launching a broader review of non-operating companies. The organization said its goal was to distinguish operating businesses from entities whose primary activities are investment-oriented.

The new proposal represents the next stage of that review and could have significant consequences for companies whose market value and balance sheets are heavily linked to assets such as Bitcoin.

Strategy and Metaplanet Face a New Index Test

Strategy, the company formerly known as MicroStrategy, and Japan’s Metaplanet are among the companies identified as potentially affected by the proposed methodology.

The new framework is designed to be industry-neutral. Rather than asking whether a company holds Bitcoin, MSCI is examining whether a company’s financial structure and operations resemble those of an investment vehicle rather than a traditional operating company.

That is a major change from MSCI’s earlier approach.

In October 2025, MSCI proposed excluding companies whose digital asset holdings represented at least 50% of total assets. The proposal explicitly focused on digital asset treasury companies and included Strategy and Metaplanet on its preliminary list.

After receiving significant industry feedback, MSCI decided in January not to implement that cryptocurrency-specific exclusion.

Instead, it said it would examine non-operating companies more broadly.

The latest proposal appears to be the result of that process.

The New Rule Is Not Specifically About Bitcoin

One of the most important aspects of the new MSCI proposal is that it does not single out digital assets.

The proposed screen instead looks at several financial characteristics that could indicate a company is primarily accumulating and holding non-operating assets.

That means the potential impact extends beyond Bitcoin companies.

Yellow Cake, a London-listed company that holds physical uranium, is also among the companies identified as potentially facing removal. The inclusion of a uranium-focused company is significant because it supports MSCI’s argument that the proposed framework is designed to apply across industries rather than specifically targeting cryptocurrency.

Under the proposal, companies are evaluated using a series of financial indicators related to operating assets, expenses, cash flow, fair-value changes and reliance on external capital.

The approach is intended to identify businesses where investment or asset accumulation plays a much larger role than conventional operating activity.

Source: Xpost

Why MSCI Is Looking at Non-Operating Companies

MSCI has explained that its global indexes are intended to represent operating companies rather than investment funds.

The index provider said investor feedback during its earlier digital asset consultation showed concerns that some treasury companies could resemble investment funds because their financial performance is driven primarily by assets held on the balance sheet.

MSCI also acknowledged that the same question could apply to other types of companies.

The January decision therefore called for further research into how companies holding non-operating assets should be treated.

The new framework attempts to make that assessment using financial data instead of an asset-specific rule.

For investors, the distinction is crucial.

A Bitcoin treasury company could argue that it is operating a business with Bitcoin serving as its principal treasury reserve asset. MSCI, however, is asking whether the company's financial characteristics ultimately make it function more like an investment vehicle.

Strategy Has Previously Challenged MSCI’s Approach

Strategy has been one of the most vocal critics of the original proposal.

The company has argued that its Bitcoin strategy is part of its corporate operations and capital-management structure rather than evidence that it is an investment fund.

Strategy’s filings describe Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve asset and say the company uses equity and debt financing as part of a strategy designed to accumulate Bitcoin and create shareholder value.

That business model has made Strategy one of the largest corporate holders of Bitcoin in the world.

Its argument is that shareholders are not simply purchasing a passive Bitcoin fund. They are buying shares in a publicly traded company with an enterprise software business, capital-markets operations and a specific Bitcoin treasury strategy.

The new MSCI framework could force that argument to be tested using financial metrics rather than the company's stated business description.

Metaplanet Faces Similar Questions

Metaplanet has taken a comparable approach in Japan.

The company describes itself as a Bitcoin Treasury Company and says its strategy is built around acquiring and holding Bitcoin as a long-term reserve asset. It also operates businesses including a hotel and Bitcoin-related ventures.

Metaplanet has argued that it should be evaluated as an operating company with an integrated Bitcoin strategy rather than as a passive investment vehicle.

The company has also previously responded to similar index-related concerns in Japan, arguing that investors are buying a company with a corporate strategy rather than an undifferentiated Bitcoin fund.

The MSCI proposal could therefore become another major test of how global index providers classify companies built around digital asset treasury strategies.

Index Removal Could Create Selling Pressure

The potential consequences extend beyond the companies themselves.

Major indexes are tracked by large institutional funds, exchange-traded funds and other investment products.

When a company is removed from an index, funds that are designed to replicate that benchmark may need to reduce or eliminate their positions.

That can create forced selling pressure independent of the company's underlying business performance.

For Strategy and Metaplanet, such an outcome could be particularly important because their stocks already trade partly as vehicles for investor exposure to Bitcoin.

A reduction in institutional demand could affect liquidity, valuation and the premium investors are willing to pay for their shares relative to the value of the Bitcoin held on their balance sheets.

The October 2025 Crash Adds Historical Context

The timing of MSCI’s earlier digital asset consultation has become part of the story because the original announcement came on October 10, 2025, the same day cryptocurrency markets suffered an extraordinary liquidation event.

Bitcoin fell more than 14% during the day, while approximately $19 billion in leveraged cryptocurrency positions were liquidated. The event was later described by the SEC as the most dramatic flash crash in the crypto market to that point.

The coincidence fueled debate throughout the cryptocurrency community, although there is no evidence that MSCI’s announcement caused the market crash.

The new proposal is different from the rule introduced in October.

Rather than focusing specifically on digital assets, MSCI is now attempting to establish a broader methodology that could apply to companies holding a variety of non-operating assets.

What Happens Next

The proposal is not yet a final rule.

MSCI is consulting with market participants and has indicated that the proposed methodology may or may not be implemented.

Under the reported timetable, feedback is being accepted through September 30, with results expected by October 16. Any resulting changes would be considered for implementation during the November 2026 Index Review.

That leaves Strategy, Metaplanet and other potentially affected companies with an opportunity to challenge the methodology or explain why their businesses should remain eligible for inclusion.

The outcome could have implications far beyond two Bitcoin treasury companies.

If MSCI establishes a broad framework for identifying non-operating companies, other businesses whose value is heavily tied to commodities, digital assets or financial investments could face similar scrutiny in the future.

A New Chapter in the Bitcoin Treasury Debate

The latest MSCI proposal represents a new phase in the debate over how Bitcoin treasury companies should be classified.

The first attempt focused directly on digital assets and was abandoned after criticism that it unfairly singled out cryptocurrency-focused businesses.

The new proposal takes a different route.

By focusing on financial characteristics rather than Bitcoin itself, MSCI is attempting to create a framework that can be applied across industries.

That makes the issue more difficult for companies such as Strategy and Metaplanet to frame simply as a cryptocurrency-specific policy.

At the same time, the inclusion of companies such as uranium holder Yellow Cake suggests that the debate is genuinely broader than Bitcoin.

For investors, the most important question now is whether MSCI’s proposed financial screens accurately distinguish between an operating company with a large treasury strategy and an investment vehicle whose primary purpose is holding assets.

Until MSCI reaches a final decision, Strategy and Metaplanet remain exposed to the possibility of index exclusion.

The coming weeks will therefore be closely watched by Bitcoin investors, institutional funds and the growing number of public companies adopting digital asset treasury strategies.