A brewing conflict between traditional equity benchmark providers and emerging corporate “bitcoin-treasury” firms just intensified as Strive, one of the fastest-growing names in the space, formally pressed MSCI to reconsider a proposal that could remove such companies from major global indexes. The potential move, if enacted, would reshuffle $100 billions in crypto-treasury valuations and raise tough questions about how markets classify companies heavily exposed to digital assets.
Key Developments
- In late 2025, MSCI opened a consultation proposing to exclude companies whose digital-asset holdings notably Bitcoin make up 50% or more of their total assets from its Global Investable Market Indexes.
- Under this rule, many firms now classified as “digital asset treasuries” (DATs) would be redefined potentially treated more like funds than operating companies.
- On December 4, 2025, Strive submitted a formal comment letter to MSCI, arguing against the proposal and warning that exclusion would undermine index neutrality, stifle innovation, and inflict collateral damage on passive investors and firms alike.
- Strive publicly listed under ticker ASST insists that bitcoin-treasury firms are legitimate operating entities, not just passive holdings. The letter notes that many such firms already build real businesses around structured finance, AI-infrastructure (in the case of mining firms), and other services besides simply holding crypto.
Market Impact
If MSCI goes ahead and executes the exclusion, it could trigger massive outflows: passive index funds tracking MSCI benchmarks would be forced to dump shares of affected firms, regardless of their broader business fundamentals. Industry watchers estimate that for some firms, this could amount to billions of dollars exiting the sector causing sharp valuations drop, severe liquidity pressure, and possible distress for firms counting on stable capital access.
Beyond individual companies, the decision could reshape the corporate-treasury landscape. Companies might shy away from allocating meaningful portions of their balance sheets to Bitcoin or other digital assets. This would likely chill a trend that, until now, has attracted dozens of new entrants globally limiting institutional adoption of crypto at corporate scale.
Moreover, the exclusion could distort the very purpose of broad equity indices: what was once a benchmark reflecting the investable equity universe might turn into a curated club of only “traditional” firms leaving out arguably legitimate, though novel, business models.
Expert Arguments & Strive’s Case
Strive’s letter to MSCI argues that automatically excluding firms with large bitcoin holdings runs counter to the fundamental principle of passive investing neutrality. The firm notes that many of its peers including those with structured-finance operations or diversified business lines produce genuine goods, services or infrastructure, and should not be equated with closed-end funds or trusts simply because of their digital-asset exposure.
Further, Strive warns the 50% threshold is arbitrary and unworkable. With Bitcoin’s price volatility, a firm could oscillate above and below the threshold triggering index exclusion or reinstatement even if its core business remains intact. This could create unnecessary churn for funds and undermine index stability.
Strive also points out that existing tools such as custom indices, ESG overlays, or investor-specific screens already allow institutions to filter out crypto-heavy companies if they choose. There’s no need for a blanket exclusion that punishes all market participants.
Finally, proponents of the bitcoin-treasury model argue that firms today are evolving beyond simple accumulation. Many mining companies are transforming into AI infrastructure providers; structured-finance firms are issuing crypto-linked debt and equity; and new entrants continue to build long-term business strategies around digital assets. Excluding these companies could stifle innovation in emerging crypto-financial infrastructure.
Critics, however, argue that firms whose valuation is mainly driven by a volatile asset like Bitcoin manifested as a large part of their balance sheet behave more like investment vehicles than operating businesses. From that perspective, index exclusion appears justified.
Conclusion
The push by Strive to stop MSCI from ostracizing bitcoin-treasury companies brings to light a pivotal tension in modern capital markets: should emergent crypto-backed business models be judged by traditional benchmarks or by their own evolving economics?
As the index-provider consultation finalizes in early 2026, the decision will ripple across the crypto and corporate-finance worlds. A ruling in favor of exclusion could derail many firms’ growth plans and dampen institutional appetite for corporate crypto exposure. A rejection or a carve-out solution via custom indices could cement digital-asset treasuries as a permanent feature of the public markets.
Either way, the outcome will send a powerful signal to CEOs, investors, and index providers alike about how Wall Street sees the future of crypto in traditional finance.
