Bitcoin think tank questions MSCI’s ‘invisible committee’ over Strategy, Metaplanet rule

A Bitcoin policy think tank has questioned how MSCI developed its latest proposal to tighten the rules governing its market indexes, after the benchmark provider identified companies including Strategy and Metaplanet for potential treatment as “non-operating businesses” and exclusion from its indexes.

MSCI first proposed excluding digital asset treasury companies from its global indexes in 2025, but shelved the plan in January after pushback and said it would instead review “non-operating companies” more broadly. On Aug. 3, it returned with a wider proposal that could still remove Strategy and Metaplanet from its indexes.

In a research paper titled Wall Street’s Invisible Committee, BPI pointed to metadata showing that the source presentation behind MSCI’s consultation was stored in an internal folder for digital asset treasury companies. BPI said the finding “warrants asking whether its broader language carried forward” MSCI’s earlier effort to exclude digital asset treasury companies.

Under the broader proposal, MSCI would first assess whether a company has substantial operating assets before applying five additional financial tests. Its own simulation showed that Strategy, Metaplanet and uranium investment company Yellow Cake would be removed under the proposed methodology.

Removing crypto treasury firms like Strategy or Metaplanet from MSCI indexes could force funds that track those benchmarks to sell their shares. In 2025, JPMorgan analysts estimated Strategy could face about $2.8 billion in outflows if it were excluded,

Cointelegraph reached out to MSCI for comment but had not received a response before publication.

After shelving its crypto-specific proposal in January, MSCI kept interim restrictions on affected digital asset treasury companies, including limits on new additions to its indexes, while it developed the broader review.

MSCI has said the new test is intended to identify companies whose value comes mainly from accumulating assets rather than from revenue-generating operations.

In the paper, the BPI also questioned MSCI’s reliance on “operating assets,” noting that the term is not a standardized balance-sheet category under US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or International Financial Reporting Standards.

According to the BPI, this could give MSCI significant discretion in how it classifies assets such as cash, investments, construction projects, and strategic holdings.