The Bitcoin Policy Institute released a report titled Wall Street’s Invisible Committee, accusing MSCI of using a proposed "non-operating company" rule to mask what BPI says is a continuing effort to remove digital asset treasury companies from its indexes. According to the report, MSCI’s broad exclusion proposal published on Aug. 3 still carries signs of a 2025 plan that had specifically targeted crypto treasury firms.
BPI said metadata in MSCI’s public consultation materials showed that the original presentation had been stored in an internal folder labeled "digital asset treasury companies." In BPI’s view, that detail raises questions about whether MSCI’s broader wording is simply a repackaged version of an earlier attempt to exclude crypto treasury companies. The label may have changed, BPI argued, but the target appears the same.
MSCI’s proposed filter starts with operating assets
Under the proposal cited by BPI, MSCI would first determine whether a company has substantial operating assets. If it does, the company would then be assessed against five financial tests. MSCI has said the framework is designed to identify companies whose value is driven mainly by asset accumulation rather than revenue and operating activity.
MSCI’s own simulation showed that, if the methodology were applied, Strategy, Metaplanet, and uranium investment company Yellow Cake would be removed from the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes. BPI said that while the framework is presented as a general rule, the most significant effect would fall on digital asset treasury companies.
BPI says "operating assets" is not a standard accounting line
BPI also challenged MSCI’s reliance on the term "operating assets." The report said the concept is not a standard balance-sheet category under either U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, or International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS. That, BPI argued, gives MSCI broad discretion in deciding which assets qualify as operating.
According to BPI, that discretion could directly affect how cash, investment portfolios, projects under construction, and strategic holdings are classified. In practice, the group said, MSCI could shape index eligibility by adjusting how it defines operating assets. BPI called on MSCI to publish clearer and reproducible standards instead of relying on what it described as a vague concept.
Index removal could force selling
For companies such as Strategy and Metaplanet, exclusion from MSCI indexes would mean funds tracking those benchmarks may have to sell their holdings. BPI cited a 2025 estimate from JPMorgan saying that if Strategy were removed by MSCI, it could face roughly $2.8 billion in outflows. That would have a direct effect on liquidity and share price performance.
BPI added that the issue extends beyond the crypto sector. Capital-intensive industries such as mining and satellite networks often require years of heavy investment and outside financing before generating meaningful revenue. If MSCI’s definition of a non-operating company is not precise, those businesses could also be affected.
Decision due by Oct. 16
MSCI’s consultation period closed on Sept. 30, and the index provider is expected to announce the result by Oct. 16. Any revised rule would be implemented in the November 2026 index review.
BlockTempo said MSCI had not responded to Cointelegraph’s request for comment after BPI published the report. At the center of the dispute is the discretion held by a major index provider in defining which companies remain visible to mainstream investors and which do not.