Strategy Stands Firm Against MSCI: DAT's Ultimate Defense

Writing by: KarenZ, Foresight News

The ongoing battle concerning the development of the Digital Asset Treasury Company (DAT) industry continues.

In October, global index provider MSCI proposed to exclude companies holding 50% or more of their assets in digital assets from its global investable market indices. This move directly threatens the market position of digital asset treasury companies represented by Strategy and could even reshape the capital flow in the entire digital asset treasury sector.

According to data from Bitcoin for Corporations, 39 companies might be excluded from MSCI’s global investable market index. JPMorgan analysts previously warned that the removal of just Strategy could lead to nearly $2.8 billion in passive fund outflows; if other index providers follow suit, the outflow could reach as much as $8.8 billion.

Currently, the consultation period for MSCI’s proposal will extend until December 31, 2025. The final decision is expected to be announced before January 15, 2026. If adjustments are made, they will be incorporated into the index review in February 2026 for formal implementation.

In response to this urgent situation, Strategy submitted a sharply worded 12-page open letter to MSCI’s Equity Index Committee on December 10. The letter was jointly signed by the company’s Executive Chairman and Founder Michael Saylor and President and CEO Phong Le, explicitly expressing strong opposition to the proposal. The letter states: “This proposal is severely misleading and could cause far-reaching destructive consequences for the interests of global investors and the development of the digital asset industry. We strongly demand MSCI fully withdraw this plan.”

Strategy’s Four Core Rebuttal Reasons

Digital assets are revolutionary foundational technology reshaping the financial system

Strategy believes MSCI’s proposal underestimates the strategic value of Bitcoin and other digital assets. Since Bitcoin was launched by Satoshi Nakamoto 16 years ago, this digital asset has gradually become a key component of the global economy, with a current market cap of approximately $1.85 trillion.

In Strategy’s view, digital assets are not merely simple financial tools but a fundamental technological innovation capable of reshaping the global financial system. Companies investing in Bitcoin infrastructure are building a new financial ecosystem, similar to how industry leaders historically deepened their investments in emerging technologies—like Standard Oil’s focus on oil well extraction in the 19th century or AT&T’s development of the telephone network in the 20th century—laying the foundation for subsequent economic transformations and becoming industry benchmarks. Strategy believes that today, companies focused on digital assets are following this “technological pioneer” path and should not be dismissed by traditional index rules.

DAT is an operating enterprise, not a passive fund

This is Strategy’s core argument—digital asset treasury companies (DATs) are full-fledged operational businesses with a complete commercial model, not merely passive investment funds holding Bitcoin. Although Strategy currently holds over 600,000 Bitcoins, its core value does not rely on Bitcoin price fluctuations but on designing and launching unique “digital credit” tools that generate sustainable returns for shareholders.

Specifically, Strategy issues various types of “digital credit” instruments, including fixed and floating dividend preferred shares with different priority levels and credit protections. Funds raised from selling these instruments are used to increase Bitcoin holdings. As long as the long-term return on Bitcoin exceeds Strategy’s USD-denominated financing costs, it can provide stable returns to shareholders and clients. Strategy emphasizes that this “active operation + asset appreciation” model is fundamentally different from the passive management logic of traditional investment funds or ETFs and should be regarded as a normal operating enterprise.

Meanwhile, Strategy questions in the letter: Why can oil giants, REITs, timber companies, and other firms hold concentrated positions in a single asset class without being classified as investment funds and excluded from indices? Imposing special restrictions only on digital asset companies clearly violates principles of fairness.

A 50% digital asset threshold is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unrealistic

Strategy points out that MSCI’s proposal employs discriminatory standards. Many traditional large companies also hold a high concentration of a single asset class, such as oil and gas companies, REITs, timber firms, and power infrastructure companies. Yet MSCI only applies special exclusion criteria to digital asset companies, constituting clear unfair treatment.

From a practical implementation perspective, the proposal also faces serious issues. Due to the volatility of digital asset prices, a company could repeatedly enter and exit MSCI’s indices within days as asset values fluctuate, causing market chaos. Additionally, differences in accounting standards—such as U.S. GAAP versus IFRS—will lead to inconsistent treatment of the same business depending on the company’s jurisdiction.

Violates index neutrality and introduces policy bias

Strategy believes MSCI’s proposal essentially involves value judgments about certain assets, violating the fundamental principle of neutrality that index providers should uphold. MSCI claims to provide comprehensive coverage of markets and aims to reflect “the evolution of the underlying equity markets,” and should not make judgments about “the quality or appropriateness of any market, company, strategy, or investment.”

By selectively excluding digital asset companies, MSCI is effectively making policy decisions on behalf of the market, which index providers should avoid.

Contradicts US digital asset strategy

Strategy emphasizes that the proposal conflicts with the strategic goal pursued by the Trump administration to position the US as a leader in digital assets. Early in its term, the Trump administration signed an executive order to promote digital financial technology growth and established a strategic Bitcoin reserve, aiming to make the US a global leader in digital assets.

However, if MSCI’s proposal is implemented, it would directly prevent US pension funds, 401(k)s, and other long-term investors from investing in digital asset companies, resulting in billions of dollars of capital outflows from the industry. This would hinder the development of American digital asset innovation companies and could weaken the US’s competitive edge in this strategic sector, contrary to government policy.

Strategy cites analyst estimates indicating that just Strategy could face up to $2.8 billion in passive stock liquidations due to MSCI’s proposal. This would not only harm Strategy itself but also create a chilling effect across the entire digital asset ecosystem—for example, forcing Bitcoin miners to sell assets prematurely to adjust their portfolios, thereby distorting normal supply and demand in digital markets.

Strategy’s Final Demands

In its open letter, Strategy makes two main requests:

1. That MSCI completely withdraw the exclusion proposal, allowing the market to determine the value of digital asset treasury companies (DATs) through free competition, enabling indices to neutrally and faithfully reflect the next-generation fintech development trend.

2. If MSCI insists on “special treatment” for digital asset companies, it should expand industry consultation scope, extend the consultation period, and provide more solid logical justification for the rules’ reasonableness.

Strategy Is Not Alone

Strategy is not fighting alone. According to BitcoinTreasuries.NET data, as of December 11, 208 publicly listed companies worldwide hold over 1.07 million Bitcoins—more than 5% of the total supply, with a current value of about $100 billion.

Source: BitcoinTreasuries.NET

These digital asset treasury companies have become an important bridge for institutions adopting cryptocurrencies, providing compliant indirect exposure for pension funds, endowments, and other traditional financial institutions.

Previously, the publicly listed Bitcoin holder Strive suggested that MSCI should return the “choice” to the market regarding digital asset companies. A straightforward solution is to create an “exclusion” version of existing indices, such as MSCI USA ex Digital Asset Treasuries and MSCI ACWI ex Digital Asset Treasuries, with transparent screening mechanisms allowing investors to choose their benchmarks. This preserves index integrity while meeting varied investor needs.

Additionally, industry group Bitcoin for Corporations has launched a joint initiative urging MSCI to withdraw the digital asset proposal. They advocate classifying companies based on actual business models, financial performance, and operational characteristics, rather than simply asset percentage thresholds. According to the group’s official website, 309 companies or investors have signed the joint letter, including not only Strategy but also firms like Strive, BitGo, Redwood Digital Group, 21MIL, Btc Inc, DeFi Development Corp, and numerous industry-leading executives, developers, and investors.

Summary

The confrontation between Strategy and MSCI is fundamentally a debate on “how emerging financial innovations can integrate into the traditional system.” Digital asset treasury companies (DATs), as “crossers” between traditional finance and the cryptocurrency world, are neither purely tech companies nor simple investment funds. Instead, they represent a new business model built upon digital assets.

MSCI’s proposal attempts to categorize these complex entities as “investment funds” and exclude them based on a “50% asset share” standard. Conversely, Strategy insists that this oversimplification severely misunderstands their business essence and breaches the principle of index neutrality. As the January 15, 2026, decision date approaches, the outcome of this battle will not only determine the inclusion of multiple Bitcoin-holding listed companies but also define the critical “survival boundary” for the future of the digital asset industry within the global traditional financial system.

Sources: