Bitcoin Think Tank Challenges MSCI’s Hidden ‘Committee’ on Strategy

A Bitcoin policy think tank is challenging how MSCI built its latest consultation on tightening eligibility rules for companies included in its equity benchmarks—after identifying internal materials tied to a digital asset “treasury” proposal that had previously been shelved.

In its research paper Wall Street’s Invisible Committee, the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) argues that metadata linked to MSCI’s consultation materials suggests the broader rule could still target crypto treasury-style firms such as Strategy and Metaplanet. MSCI, meanwhile, says it is aiming to distinguish operating companies from those whose economics rely primarily on accumulating assets rather than generating revenue through operating activities.

Key takeaways

• BPI claims metadata indicates MSCI’s wider “non-operating companies” proposal may carry forward elements of an earlier, crypto-specific consultation.
• MSCI’s own simulations, cited in the consultation, indicate Strategy, Metaplanet, and uranium investment company Yellow Cake could be removed under the proposed methodology.
• MSCI’s new approach would apply a “substantial operating assets” screen before running five additional financial tests, with BPI warning that “operating assets” lacks a standardized definition under major accounting regimes.
• If MSCI changes take effect, funds benchmarked to MSCI indexes could be forced to sell shares in companies deemed ineligible.

From a crypto-specific proposal to a broader non-operating test

MSCI’s latest consultation builds on a storyline that began earlier this year. The index provider first proposed excluding digital asset treasury companies from certain global indexes in 2025. However, MSCI shelved that plan in January after receiving pushback and said it would instead review “non-operating companies” more broadly.

On Aug. 3, MSCI returned with a wider eligibility proposal aimed at identifying firms whose value largely comes from holding or accumulating assets, rather than from operational revenue streams.

Under this updated framework, MSCI would first examine whether a company has “substantial operating assets.” If it does not, the methodology would then use five additional financial tests to decide whether the company qualifies for inclusion in the relevant MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes.

BPI’s challenge: “invisible” materials behind MSCI’s language

BPI’s critique centers on what it describes as a disconnect between MSCI’s broader wording and the documentation behind its consultation.

In its paper, BPI points to metadata suggesting the presentation used to support MSCI’s consultation was stored internally in a folder specifically for digital asset treasury companies. BPI argues that this “warrants asking whether” MSCI’s broader language effectively carries forward the intent of the earlier digital asset treasury effort.

While MSCI’s consultation is framed as a general test for non-operating companies, BPI’s focus is on the possibility that the rationale may not have fully shifted away from crypto-focused exclusions—even after MSCI said it shelved the narrower plan.

What MSCI’s simulations imply for Strategy and Metaplanet

The stakes for investors are not theoretical. In the consultation materials, MSCI included its own simulation results for how the proposed rules might apply to specific companies. According to those results—referenced in BPI’s paper—Strategy, Metaplanet, and uranium investment company Yellow Cake would be removed under the methodology.

MSCI’s simulation and consultation documentation are described in a file titled “Consultation on Eligibility of Non-Operating Companies for the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes”.

Such changes matter because index-linked funds typically track constituents and weighting rules closely. If an index provider removes companies, passive and rule-based active products may face selling pressure to align with benchmark eligibility requirements.

Earlier coverage noted that the potential impact on Strategy was already quantified by analysts. In 2025, JPMorgan analysts estimated Strategy could face approximately $2.8 billion in outflows if excluded from MSCI benchmarks in that scenario. While MSCI’s updated consultation is now framed more generally, the company-level simulations still point to Strategy and Metaplanet as likely casualties.

Why “operating assets” could be the crux—and what comes next

BPI argues that MSCI’s approach introduces significant judgment in the early screen. In the paper, BPI says the term “operating assets” is not a standardized balance-sheet category under US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). That lack of a common definition, BPI says, can give MSCI wide discretion in how it classifies assets such as cash, investments, construction projects, and strategic holdings.

BPI also argues the problem may extend beyond crypto. Capital-intensive industries—such as mining businesses or satellite network operators—can hold substantial assets for long periods and may depend on external financing before revenue ramps up. In BPI’s view, an unclear operating-assets definition risks overreaching and capturing companies that are not truly non-operating in an economic sense.

MSCI said its non-operating test is designed to separate companies whose value comes mainly from accumulating assets rather than from revenue-generating operations. The consultation also includes a public comment window: MSCI accepted feedback through Sept. 30 and said it expects to publish results on or before Oct. 16.

If MSCI finalizes changes, the provider expects any resulting index methodology updates to be implemented as part of its November 2026 Index Review.

Investors tracking crypto- and asset-heavy equities should watch the Oct. 16 decision timeline closely—not only for whether Strategy and Metaplanet are ultimately removed, but also for how MSCI defines “substantial operating assets” in its final, reproducible criteria.