Strategy’s escape from a proposed MSCI index exclusion in January 2026 has turned out to be a reprieve rather than the end of the issue.
MSCI decided in January not to implement a proposal that could have removed Strategy and other digital asset treasury companies from its Global Investable Market Indexes during the February review. The decision initially removed an important near-term risk for Strategy, whose shares rose following the announcement.
Eight months later, however, MSCI is again examining whether companies such as Strategy belong in its indexes — this time through a broader methodology covering non-operating companies rather than a rule aimed specifically at digital asset treasuries.
Under MSCI’s August proposal, Strategy appears among three current constituents that would be deleted based on a simulated application of the proposed methodology using May 2026 data.
That distinction changes the significance of the January decision. MSCI abandoned the specific digital-asset threshold it had been considering, but it did not abandon the underlying question of how its indexes should distinguish operating businesses from companies whose value is driven heavily by investment assets.
What MSCI Actually Decided in January
MSCI’s original consultation considered excluding digital asset treasury companies when digital assets represented 50% or more of their total assets.
The index provider said some market participants believed such companies displayed characteristics similar to investment funds, which are generally ineligible for the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes.
On Jan. 6, MSCI announced that it would not implement that proposal during the February 2026 Index Review. Companies already included in its indexes could remain, provided they continued meeting other eligibility requirements.
But the decision came with an important qualification.
In its January consultation result, MSCI said it intended to conduct a broader review of non-operating companies because digital asset treasury companies could be part of a larger group whose activities are predominantly investment-oriented.
That broader review has now arrived.
The New Proposal Goes Beyond Bitcoin Treasuries
On Aug. 3, MSCI opened a consultation proposing new eligibility rules for non-operating companies across its Global Investable Market Indexes.
Instead of automatically excluding a company because cryptocurrency represents a particular percentage of its assets, MSCI is proposing a two-step quantitative test.
The first step examines whether a company has sufficient operating assets. Companies that fail that test would then face five additional screens covering operating asset intensity, expense intensity, operating cash flow, fair-value exposure and dependence on external capital.
A company failing four of those five tests could become ineligible.
Current index constituents would receive additional protection against abrupt removal. MSCI proposes requiring them to fail the relevant test across two consecutive periods before deletion, reducing the chance that a temporary change in financial structure triggers immediate index turnover.
The MSCI consultation shows why the proposal matters specifically for Strategy. Applying the methodology to the MSCI ACWI IMI using May 2026 data would produce three deletions: Strategy, U.K.-based Yellow Cake and Japan’s Metaplanet. Three additional companies would be placed on a watchlist.
The result is still only a consultation scenario, not a final decision.
Why Strategy Is at the Center of the Debate
Strategy occupies an unusual position between an operating technology company and a large publicly traded bitcoin treasury.
The company began acquiring bitcoin in 2020 and has since made digital assets central to its capital strategy. By September 2026, Strategy reported holdings of 845,050 bitcoin, making its exposure to the cryptocurrency far larger than when the original accumulation strategy began.
That model means movements in bitcoin can have major implications for Strategy’s balance sheet and shares. It also explains why index providers face a classification problem: conventional equity indexes are designed principally to represent operating companies, while investment funds are generally treated differently.
For readers following the underlying asset rather than Strategy’s corporate structure, The Gignomist has also examined how Bitcoin responds to changing global liquidity and monetary-policy conditions.
The wider crypto ecosystem is dealing with a separate challenge as adoption expands: making blockchain-based financial products practical for mainstream users. The Gignomist’s analysis of Web3’s financial inclusion and usability problem examines that issue beyond institutional markets.
January’s Reprieve Did Not Settle the Index Question
MSCI’s latest proposal is broader than the rule considered in 2025. Rather than creating a cryptocurrency-specific threshold, it attempts to identify non-operating companies through financial characteristics that could apply across industries.
That matters because the outcome could establish a methodology extending beyond Strategy and the digital asset treasury sector.
Strategy disputes MSCI’s approach. The company argues that the proposed definition of non-operating companies is inappropriate and that its bitcoin activities should be treated as part of an operating business rather than as evidence that it functions like an investment fund.
For investors, the immediate question is no longer whether MSCI will apply the abandoned 50% digital-asset rule. It is whether Strategy would ultimately fail the broader methodology now under consideration.
What Happens Next
MSCI is accepting feedback on the non-operating-company proposal through Sept. 30, 2026.
The index provider expects to announce the consultation result on or before Oct. 16. If MSCI decides to proceed, resulting methodology changes are proposed for implementation as part of the November 2026 Index Review.
Until then, the simulated deletion of Strategy should not be described as an announced removal.
The January decision preserved Strategy’s index position under the existing framework. The August consultation shows that the larger debate over what qualifies as an operating company — and where a bitcoin-heavy company fits within traditional equity benchmarks — remains unresolved.
