Crypto & Forex September 2, 2026 0 Comments

Why MSCI’s ‘Non-Operating’ Tag Could Be the Game-Changer MSTR Investors Didn’t See Coming – Here’s What’s Next!

When it comes to the ever-evolving digital asset landscape, few battles are as intriguing as the one unfolding between Strategy—the globe’s reigning Bitcoin treasury titan—and MSCI Inc., the giant indexing firm. Imagine trying to tell a business that their prized Bitcoin stash is “non-operating”—it’s like calling a chef’s signature dish ‘just a salad.’ Strategy isn’t taking this lightly; they’ve pushed back hard, labeling MSCI’s latest exclusion plan as not just misguided but skewed against digital asset treasuries (DATs). The proposal isn’t new—it’s a repackaged version of a withdrawn 2025 plan disguised in fresh jargon but aiming at the same target: companies with more than half their assets tied up in digital currency. This tug-of-war raises a burning question: Should index providers act as market mirrors or gatekeepers rewriting the rules on what counts as ‘operating’ business? As Strategy rallies to defend names like MSTR and Metaplanet, and as industry heavyweights brace for potential multi-billion-dollar outflows, we’re left wondering who really holds the power to define market legitimacy in an age of crypto innovation. Ready to dive into this high-stakes clash? LEARN MORE.

Strategy, the world’s largest Bitcoin treasury firm, has asked global index provider MSCI Inc. to withdraw its latest exclusion proposal.

The firm called MSCI’s proposal ‘misguided’ and opposed it on four grounds. First, the move is biased and targets DATs (digital asset treasuries).

The proposal is a pretext for targeting DATs, repackaging MSCI’s own withdrawn 2025 proposal to exclude companies with 50%+ digital asset holdings in a different language, but reaching the same result.

MSCI wants to exclude firms it calls ‘non-operating‘ companies that buy and hold assets, ideally acting like passive investment funds. For an index provider, only active businesses with real operating cash should be included in its Global Investable Markets Indexes (GIMI).

Strategy defends MSTR, other DATs on MSCI indices

The latest MSCI expanded exclusion framework would exclude MSTR, Metaplanet, and a firm that buys and holds Uranium. Beyond targeting crypto, Strategy discredited the proposal as flouting key laws and standards.

It added that the exclusion plan goes against U.S accounting standards, securities law, and MSCI’s market neutrality.

Notably, Strategy slammed MSCI’s classification of Bitcoin as a “non-operating” asset and added,

Based on U.S. GAAP and SEC guidance, Strategy reports its Bitcoin business as an operating segment and its Bitcoin gains and losses as operating expenses.

Feedback on the proposal is set to run until the end of September. If the proposal is adopted, it’ll become effective by December 1st.

For his part, Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, urged MSCI to be “a mirror of the market, not an arbiter of it.”

Phong Le, Strategy’s CEO, also reinforced a similar framing, noting that,

S&P, FTSE, Bloomberg, Nasdaq, and ICE broadly reflect the market. MSCI seems to be going its own way, against U.S. policy priorities and beyond established securities-law and accounting frameworks.

Could MSTR face billions in outflows?

Last year, JPMorgan analysts warned that the MSCI exclusion could trigger $2.8B of MSTR fund liquidations. However, they added that other indices like LSEG’s Russell index and Nasdaq could extend to nearly $9B in outflows.

But Strategy downplayed the impact.

Funds that track MSCI indices represent ~3% of MSTR shares outstanding, which is only ~60% of one day’s trading volume.

DATs have reinforced an institutional momentum for the broader sector. Collectively, these firms own about $3B worth of crypto assets, down from +$8B at the peak of the bull market.

Pushing them out of MSCI and other indices would likely affect the segment. In fact, JPMorgan analysts added that the move would thin out liquidity and make the stocks less attractive even to other investors.

It’s unclear if DATs will evolve and overcome MSCI’s plan.

Final Summary

Strategy asked MSCI to withdraw the proposal and be neutral like Nasdaq and LSEG-owned Russell indices
JPMorgan had earlier warned that other indices could follow MSCI’s move and strain the DAT sector.