The Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) has challenged the transparency of MSCI’s latest proposal to tighten index rules, which identifies companies such as Strategy and Metaplanet as potential "non-operating businesses" subject to exclusion. In a research paper titled "Wall Street’s Invisible Committee," BPI highlighted metadata indicating that the source presentation for MSCI’s consultation was stored in an internal folder specifically designated for digital asset treasury companies. This finding raises questions about whether MSCI’s broader language inadvertently carries forward its earlier, shelved effort to target these specific entities.
MSCI initially proposed excluding digital asset treasury companies in 2025 but paused the plan in January following industry pushback, opting instead for a wider review of non-operating companies. The August 3 proposal introduces a test assessing substantial operating assets before applying five additional financial criteria. MSCI simulations indicate that Strategy, Metaplanet, and uranium investment firm Yellow Cake would be removed under this methodology. Such exclusions could trigger significant fund outflows; JPMorgan analysts estimated in 2025 that Strategy might face approximately $2.8 billion in selling pressure if delisted. BPI argues that reliance on "operating assets" is problematic because the term lacks standardization under US GAAP or IFRS, granting MSCI excessive discretion in classifying cash, investments, and strategic holdings. The institute warns this ambiguity could also affect capital-intensive sectors like mining and satellite networks. MSCI accepted feedback through September 30 and plans to announce results by October 16, with changes effective during the November 2026 Index Review.
The core tension lies in the regulatory arbitrage between index construction methodologies and evolving corporate balance sheets. By framing the issue around the lack of standardized definitions for "operating assets" under major accounting frameworks, the Bitcoin Policy Institute exposes a critical vulnerability in how benchmark providers classify value creation. If MSCI proceeds with broad discretionary powers to define non-operating status, it risks creating a precedent where index inclusion becomes a subjective judgment call rather than a mechanical application of transparent metrics. This opacity undermines the credibility of passive investment vehicles that rely on these benchmarks, potentially distorting market access for companies whose primary activity involves holding volatile or long-term assets.
