MSCI’s Digital Asset Treasury Proposal Could Reshape Markets and Force a Reckoning on Utility

A proposal now under review by MSCI has the potential to send shockwaves through public markets that have increasingly embraced digital asset treasuries. The index provider is consulting on whether companies whose digital asset holdings exceed 50% of total assets should be excluded from its Global Investable Market Indexes, a move that could trigger forced selling by passive funds and ETFs tied to those benchmarks. The consultation period closes on December 31, with a final decision expected by January 15, 2026, and potential implementation as early as February’s Index Review. For companies holding significant positions in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and other digital assets, the stakes are considerable.

At the center of the debate is the question of classification: when does an operating company effectively become an investment fund? Strategy, one of the earliest and most prominent adopters of a Bitcoin-centric treasury model, has pushed back forcefully against MSCI’s proposal. The company argues that it operates a Bitcoin-backed corporate treasury and capital markets program, issuing equity and fixed-income instruments with clearly defined exposure profiles, rather than functioning as a passive investment vehicle. Through the BitcoinForCorporations initiative, technical analysis submitted to MSCI contends that the proposed exclusion violates core benchmark principles of representativeness, neutrality, and stability, as outlined under IOSCO and EU Benchmark Regulation (BMR) standards.

Critics of the proposal also point to precedent. MSCI has historically included REITs, despite regulatory requirements that at least 75% of assets be held in real estate, as well as conglomerates such as Berkshire Hathaway, which maintains a massive investment portfolio alongside operating businesses. Mining companies holding substantial gold reserves have likewise never been excluded based on the composition of their balance sheets. Against that backdrop, opponents argue that singling out digital asset treasuries, particularly with a fixed 50% threshold, introduces an arbitrary standard that has never before been applied to operating companies.

Volatility further complicates the issue. Digital asset valuations can fluctuate dramatically and accounting treatments vary across jurisdictions. Strategy has warned that MSCI’s framework could cause companies to “whipsaw on and off” major indices as asset prices move, creating instability not just for issuers but for institutional investors forced to rebalance portfolios repeatedly. Such forced selling pressure could disproportionately affect companies whose stock prices are already tightly correlated with crypto market sentiment.

Yet beneath the technical arguments lies a deeper and more consequential issue for the future of digital asset treasuries: utility. Early pioneers like Strategy demonstrated that a crypto-centric treasury model could work as a financial strategy in a different market era. But conditions have changed. A growing number of public companies—many outside technology or blockchain—have adopted digital asset treasuries primarily as yield-bearing instruments, with little operational integration or strategic utility beyond price appreciation and staking returns. If MSCI’s proposal moves forward, these companies may find themselves particularly vulnerable, effectively reclassified by the market as de facto crypto investment funds rather than operating businesses.

This is where the next phase of Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) adoption will likely diverge. Companies that treat digital assets solely as balance-sheet trades may struggle to justify their inclusion in broad market indices or to defend their business models during market downturns. By contrast, firms that embed real utility, using digital assets for payments, settlement, tokenized credit, supply-chain finance, programmable debt instruments, or operational integration, are better positioned to argue that their treasuries support core business activity rather than replace it.

If MSCI proceeds, the immediate impact could be sharp, index exclusions, selling pressure, and heightened scrutiny across the public markets. The longer-term effect, however, may be more constructive. It could force a clear distinction between true operating companies leveraging digital assets as infrastructure and those merely riding crypto exposure for financial optics. In that sense, the proposal may accelerate a necessary maturation of the DAT space, one where utility, not just yield, determines which companies emerge as leaders in the next era of digital finance.