The global index provider MSCI adopted new rules on October 15, under which "non-operating companies" will no longer qualify for inclusion in its Global Investable Market Indexes (GIMI) as part of the November index review, effective from the close on November 30; the final list of affected companies will be published on November 11.
Strategy (MSTR.US), led by Michael Saylor and the world's largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, which is also a constituent of the MSCI USA and MSCI World indexes, appears on the potential removal list, alongside Japan's Metaplanet, while SharpLink and several other crypto treasury companies have been placed on a watch list.
After the news emerged, Strategy shares fell 2.7% in Friday premarket trading. The company had a market capitalization of about $64.3 billion at Thursday's close, and its share price is essentially flat so far in 2026.
On the surface, this is a tweak to index construction rules; but when viewed alongside the 848,000 Bitcoins Strategy holds, what it really touches is the most stable source of marginal buying for Bitcoin over the past two years — the flywheel of raising money through stocks and bonds and converting it into Bitcoin.
How the new rules screen companies: first check for real operations, then pass five financial ratio tests
MSCI's approach is this: it first defines "non-operating companies" as investment funds, business development companies (BDCs), and other companies whose financial condition makes them resemble such institutions. The new rules broaden the exclusion of these passive investment vehicles, and companies must pass financial tests focused on operating assets to retain eligibility.
The screening works in two steps: first, it checks whether a company holds sufficient operating assets; those that fail proceed to the second step, where they are assessed against five financial ratios, and hitting four or more of them means losing eligibility. The five metrics cover operating assets, expenses, cash flow, changes in asset value, and reliance on external financing.
For companies already in the indexes, MSCI has left a buffer: in principle, removal only occurs if the exclusion criteria are triggered in each of the two most recent annual reporting periods, and MSCI may also use the latest interim financial statements as appropriate; companies outside the indexes will not be included if they fail in any single period.
MSCI says the double buffer of ratio thresholds and timing is intended to reduce constituent turnover.
Looking at the timeline: MSCI launched this assessment a year ago, with an initial proposal to directly exclude digital asset treasury companies on the grounds that their form resembles investment funds — and investment funds are already excluded from its indexes; in January this year MSCI shelved that proposal and instead opened a broader review of all non-operating companies. This consultation began on August 3 and ended on September 30, and MSCI published the results on October 15.
Also terminated was the interim measure introduced in October 2025 — which, for companies with "digital assets exceeding 50% of total assets," restricted share count increases, froze inclusion factors, and delayed inclusion and size-tier adjustments; these companies will now all be assessed under the new standards.
848,000 Bitcoins: holdings, cost, and a premium that has already turned negative
As of October 4, Strategy held 848,250 Bitcoins, about 4.04% of the fixed supply of 21 million; the cumulative investment cost was about $63.97 billion, at an average cost of about $75,440.70 per coin, and the company estimates digital asset gains of about $20.91 billion in the third quarter.
Putting these numbers together with the market capitalization produces an anomaly: the market cap was about $64.3 billion at Thursday's close, while the value of its holdings as calculated by CoinDesk was about $69.67 billion — the company's market value is already below the Bitcoin it holds.
Data from BTCorMSTR shows that Strategy's market cap/net asset value ratio fell to 0.98 on October 8, a roughly 2% discount to its Bitcoin net asset value, whereas during the September rebound the ratio was still around 1.2.
Strain on the funding side is already visible. From October 1 to 4, the company spent only $28.7 million to buy 334 Bitcoins (at an average price of $85,838.80, including fees), yet spent $73.7 million repurchasing preferred stock and drew $142.5 million from its dollar reserves to pay dividends and interest; on October 12, the company used $21 million from common stock issuance to continue buying coins. The pace of Bitcoin buying has clearly given way to debt repayment and buybacks.
What does $2.8 billion mean? What does removal mean?
The most widely circulated figure in the market is "$2.8 billion," but it has two sources and two definitions.
The first is JPMorgan's estimate — removal could lead to about $2.8 billion in passive fund outflows from Strategy. Based on Thursday's closing market capitalization of $64.3 billion, that equates to about 4.4% of its market value.
The second is the company's own calculation. In its August 31 response submitted to MSCI, Strategy said funds tracking GIMI indexes hold about 13 million of its shares, equal to 3.1% of its basic share capital and equivalent to 60% of its 30-day average trading volume — less than a single day's turnover. On that basis, the company argues that removal "will not have a material impact on Strategy."
Strategy warned last year that removal would lead to the liquidation of $2.8 billion of its shares and would "chill" the entire industry.
Does it transmit to the coin price? It is not "having to sell coins," but "being unable to buy"
The most critical point in understanding the impact on Bitcoin is this: index rules will not force any company to sell Bitcoin; what gets sold is the stock. Strategy's 848,000 coins will not automatically enter the market because of an index adjustment. The real transmission chain is a different one.
Strategy's Bitcoin-buying model is to issue common or preferred stock when its share price is above its Bitcoin net asset value, and use the proceeds to buy coins. The premium is the fuel for this flywheel, and the passive buying created by index membership is part of what supports that premium. Once passive funds exit, the base of stock demand is weakened, the premium (or the current discount) comes under further pressure, the company's financing costs rise, issuance shrinks, and the amount of future Bitcoin buying shrinks accordingly.
Analysts at the decentralized infrastructure network ZEROBASE issue a warning from precisely this angle: losing index-driven demand could cut off the very issuance that finances Bitcoin purchases.
But the magnitude must be viewed calmly. Strategy's recent Bitcoin purchases have already been small — $28.7 million from October 1 to 4 and $21 million on October 12; while according to CoinGecko, Bitcoin's 24-hour trading volume on October 16 was about $32.88 billion. In other words, as far as current marginal buying is concerned, this channel's contribution to daily turnover is almost negligible.
The real risk is not in the coming weeks, but in two things: first, spillover at the model level. In 2025, individual investors net sold about 696,000 Bitcoins, while companies, investment funds, and governments together bought nearly 1 million — corporate treasuries are one of the most visible marginal buyer groups in this market. If the "digital asset treasury" model as a whole is shut out of the mainstream index system, smaller companies such as Metaplanet and Upexi will face a heavier demand shock, and the entire group's incremental buying could shrink, not just Strategy's.
Second, whether other index providers follow suit. TFTC has sketched out scenarios in which FTSE Russell and S&P Dow Jones follow suit, but as of publication neither had announced a related consultation. This is the biggest tail risk of this event for the coin price — once the rule spreads from one index provider to the entire index system, what gets squeezed is no longer one company's financing capacity but an entire asset-allocation channel.
The coin price is already under pressure, and this news is a叠加, not an independent variable
It should be noted that MSCI's selling pressure will land in a market that is itself not strong. On Thursday, Bitcoin briefly fell below $80,000 to about $79,800, the first time in more than a month, but buyers pulled it back above $82,000 within two hours; on Friday it traded at about $82,000, with a total market capitalization of about $1.649 trillion. The trigger was higher-than-expected U.S. inflation data: September CPI rose 3.7% year-on-year (expected 3.6%), while PPI rose 1.3% month-on-month and 6.3% year-on-year; at the same time, South Korea's Kospi closed Thursday at its lowest since April and rebounded nearly 3% on Friday; the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield was about 5.07%.
On technical levels, Purvang Mashru of BitDelta India puts resistance at $82,544 and support at $82,000 and $81,000; Riya Sehgal of Delta Exchange sees $82,200—$83,100 as a key resistance band, with a rebound only confirmed above $83,000—$83,500, while $81,000 and $80,000 remain key support; 10x Research advises holding Bitcoin during the AI trade pullback, but only on the condition that BTC holds above $78,000.
In other words, the MSCI issue is, in the short term, more of an incremental negative on sentiment and narrative than a quantifiable list of selling pressure.
The company's defense and MSCI's rationale
Strategy has publicly opposed this classification since August. In its response published on August 31, the company directly asked MSCI to "withdraw its proposal," with three core arguments: first, funds tracking GIMI hold only about 13 million shares, or 3.1%, which is not enough to constitute a material shock; second, "operating" and "non-operating" are not established classifications under U.S. GAAP, International Financial Reporting Standards, or the existing legal framework, and its Bitcoin business is already reported as an operating segment under U.S. accounting standards; third, MSCI is essentially restarting its previously withdrawn special proposal on digital asset companies under a different name, a disguised targeting of digital asset treasury companies.
Saylor and CEO Phong Le publicly called the plan discriminatory earlier this year, arguing that it would harm the company while also damaging MSCI's credibility as a neutral index provider.
MSCI's rationale is equally clear: global equity indexes already exclude ETFs, investment funds, BDCs, and other passive investment vehicles, and the new financial metrics are merely used to identify issuers that are still legally listed companies but whose economic characteristics are close to investment vehicles.
One telling detail is that the list does not include only crypto companies — Britain's uranium investment company Yellow Cake is also on it, showing that the new standard is formally asset-neutral; but according to WEEX statistics, 14 of the 22 potentially affected companies are directly related to crypto, accounting for more than 90% of free-float market capitalization, so the actual pressure falls almost entirely on the digital asset treasury side.
Metaplanet's situation serves as a comparison: it held 44,000 Bitcoins at the end of September, sold 10,000 and bought back 11,000 in the third quarter to demonstrate liquidity to the market, and its capital allocation policy limits Bitcoin exposure to 85%—90% of total assets. For smaller treasury companies like this, financing flexibility after losing passive demand is far weaker than Strategy's.
Comments