Bitcoin: MSCI Aims to Remove Strategy from Its Global Indices

Strategy thought it had won the battle in January. Seven months later, MSCI returns with a different method that could lead to the same result: the removal of the largest publicly traded holder of bitcoin from several global indices. This time, the term "crypto" almost disappears from the framework. In its place, five financial ratios are intended to identify companies whose value depends more on accumulated assets than on traditional operational activity. And in MSCI's simulation, Strategy falls directly into the trap.

In brief

• MSCI proposes new rules to exclude certain companies deemed "non-operational" from its major indices.
• A simulation conducted with data from May 2026 places Strategy among the three companies that would be removed from the MSCI ACWI IMI.
• Strategy strikes back and accuses the index of indirectly penalizing its bitcoin-based model.

Bitcoin: Strategy Back in MSCI's Crosshairs

The respite was short-lived. In January, MSCI ultimately kept Strategy and other crypto cash companies in its global indices. The index provider had abandoned an initial, particularly simple approach: to exclude companies whose digital assets represented at least 50% of their balance sheet. The new project goes further. And most importantly, it avoids directly targeting bitcoin.

MSCI now wants to identify so-called "non-operating companies". The first test looks at the balance sheet composition. If operational assets exceed 50% of the total, the company passes the hurdle. Otherwise, it faces a second set of five criteria: weight of operational assets, level of activity-related expenses, operational cash flows, fair value changes, and dependence on external financing. Four negative signals out of five may be enough to render a company ineligible.

This mechanism completely changes the debate. MSCI no longer asks how many bitcoins a company owns. It essentially asks what truly sustains and values the company.

For Strategy, the answer poses a problem. Its software activity still exists, but its balance sheet and valuation now largely revolve around its gigantic BTC reserve and its ability to raise capital to support it.

MSCI's simulation leaves little room for doubt. Applied to the MSCI ACWI IMI with the data available in May 2026, the new method would have led to three removals: Strategy, Yellow Cake, and Metaplanet. Strategy overwhelmingly dominates the trio with a market capitalization adjusted for float estimated at $23.93 billion.

Strategy Refuses to Let Its Bitcoin Become a Liability

The reaction was swift. On August 14, Strategy publicly challenged MSCI's logic. Its argument can be summed up in a few words: digital assets remain assets, and an index provider should reflect the market, not decide which assets a company can keep on its balance sheet. The tone is rising because the issue goes far beyond a line in an index.

Strategy holds over 840,000 BTC. Its model has long been to use equity, debt, and financial products to accumulate bitcoin. This mechanism has given it a unique place on Wall Street, but it also makes its profile very different from that of a traditional company.

The financial situation has indeed begun to evolve. Strategy recently sold part of its bitcoins to strengthen its financial structure. The symbol matters. For a long time, Michael Saylor's group had built part of its image around an almost irreversible accumulation of BTC.

The debate initiated by MSCI precisely touches on this boundary: when does a listed company cease to be primarily a business and start to resemble an investment vehicle?

The detail that complicates the accusation of war against Bitcoin comes from Yellow Cake. This British company holds physical uranium, not cryptocurrencies, and yet it is also among the three simulated removals. MSCI thus has a solid argument: its new filter officially does not target Bitcoin or digital assets.

However, Strategy can still argue that the new formula produces almost the same effect as the one abandoned a few months earlier. The crypto threshold has disappeared; the company remains threatened.

An Exclusion Capable of Provoking Forced Sales

Being removed from an MSCI index does not just mean losing a line on a list. Passive funds built to replicate these indices must adjust their portfolios when a stock disappears. An exclusion of MSTR can thus transform a methodological decision into very real sell orders.

JPMorgan estimated that around $2.8 billion in outflows could affect Strategy under the former MSCI project. This figure does not exactly correspond to the methodology currently under consultation, so it should be handled with caution. However, it gives an idea of the financial stakes surrounding MSTR's presence in major benchmarks.

The pressure comes at a delicate moment. The premium once granted by investors to Strategy compared to the value of its bitcoins has significantly compressed. With Bitcoin spot ETFs, Wall Street also has another way to gain exposure to BTC without bearing the debt, equity issuances, preferred shares, and risks inherent to Strategy.

This does not condemn Michael Saylor's model. It forces him to prove that he is worth more than a massive publicly traded Bitcoin portfolio. And the decision has not yet been made. MSCI is collecting market feedback until September 30, 2026, and plans to publish the results of its consultation by October 16 at the latest. If the reform passes, changes could occur during the November index review.

Strategy has also begun to bolster its defenses by building several billion dollars in liquidity to strengthen its balance sheet. The duel with MSCI thus reveals a deeper question than the fate of MSTR: Wall Street now accepts Bitcoin. The question remains how far it will accept companies for which Bitcoin becomes the dominant economic activity.