The Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI), a think tank focused on bitcoin policy, has raised questions about how index provider MSCI developed its latest proposal to tighten eligibility rules for its market benchmarks, after the provider flagged companies including Strategy and Metaplanet for potential treatment as "non-operating businesses" and exclusion from its indexes.

MSCI first proposed removing digital asset treasury companies — firms that hold cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin on their balance sheets — from its global indexes in 2025, but shelved the plan in January following industry pushback, saying it would instead review "non-operating companies" more broadly. On Aug. 3, the index provider returned with a wider proposal that could still result in Strategy and Metaplanet being dropped.

In a research paper titled "Wall Street's Invisible Committee," BPI pointed to metadata — embedded file information that can reveal where a document was stored — showing that the source presentation behind MSCI's consultation was stored in an internal folder for digital asset treasury companies. According to the think tank, the finding "warrants asking whether its broader language carried forward" from MSCI's earlier effort to exclude digital asset treasury companies.

Under the broader proposal, MSCI would first assess whether a company has substantial operating assets before applying five additional financial tests. MSCI's own simulation showed that Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), Tokyo-listed Metaplanet and uranium investment company Yellow Cake would be removed under the proposed methodology.

An exclusion of crypto treasury firms such as Strategy or Metaplanet could force funds that track MSCI benchmarks to sell their shares, since index-tracking vehicles generally hold the constituents of the benchmarks they follow. In 2025, JPMorgan analysts estimated that Strategy could face roughly $2.8 billion in outflows if it were removed from the indexes. The episode underscores the influence index providers hold over capital flows, as their methodology decisions determine which securities appear in the benchmarks that passive funds replicate. Cointelegraph reached out to MSCI for comment but had not received a response before publication.

BPI questions MSCI's definition of an operating company

After shelving its crypto-specific proposal in January, MSCI maintained interim restrictions on affected digital asset treasury companies, including limits on new additions to its indexes, while it developed the broader review. MSCI has said the new test is intended to identify companies whose value comes mainly from accumulating assets rather than from revenue-generating operations.

In the paper, BPI also questioned MSCI's reliance on "operating assets," noting that the term is not a standardized balance-sheet category under US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or International Financial Reporting Standards, the accounting frameworks that govern financial reporting for listed companies in the United States and much of the world. According to the think tank, this could give MSCI significant discretion in how it classifies assets such as cash, investments, construction projects and strategic holdingsn
BPI argued the issue could extend beyond crypto, noting that capital-intensive businesses such as mines or satellite networks may hold large amounts of assets and rely on outside financing for years before generating revenue. It called on MSCI to publish clearer and reproducible criteria for determining which companies qualify for its broad-market indexes.

MSCI accepted feedback through Sept. 30 and said it expects to announce the results on or before Oct. 16. The announcement will determine whether flagged firms such as Strategy and Metaplanet remain eligible for MSCI's broad-market indexes, with any resulting changes proposed to take effect as part of its November 2026 Index Review.