Strategy Responds to MSCI Letter, Advocates for Bitcoin Index Inclusion A digital asset management firm has publicly released a detailed response to index provider MSCI, making a direct case for the inclusion of bitcoin-focused companies in its widely followed indexes. The core argument centers on classifying these businesses as legitimate operating companies, comparable to other single-commodity firms already within MSCI indices. The firm’s letter addresses a prior communication from MSCI that expressed reservations about including companies whose principal business is investing in bitcoin. MSCI had categorized such entities as investment vehicles, which are typically excluded from its standard equity indexes. In its rebuttal, the firm challenges this classification. It asserts that digital asset treasury companies are not passive holders but active operating businesses. Their activities, the letter argues, go beyond mere investment and encompass corporate strategy, capital allocation, risk management, and shareholder value creation through a dedicated bitcoin-focused model. This operational approach, the firm contends, is fundamentally different from a traditional investment fund or trust. To strengthen its case, the firm draws a parallel to the mining sector already represented in MSCI indexes. It points out that numerous companies within MSCI indices are single-asset businesses, such as gold mining firms. These companies derive their value almost exclusively from the gold they mine and hold. Similarly, a digital asset treasury company’s value is intrinsically linked to bitcoin. The firm argues that if single-asset gold miners are considered operating companies, then single-asset bitcoin companies should receive the same designation. The response also tackles the issue of valuation and financial reporting. The firm acknowledges MSCI’s concerns about the volatility and accounting treatment of bitcoin on corporate balance sheets but argues that these are not unique to digital assets. It notes that companies dealing in commodities, foreign currencies, or even growth-stage biotech stocks also navigate significant volatility and specialized accounting standards. The presence of these companies in indexes suggests that volatility alone is not a disqualifying factor. Furthermore, the letter highlights the growing maturity and institutional adoption of bitcoin as an asset class. It references established regulatory frameworks, the presence of regulated custodians, and the development of robust financial products as evidence that the ecosystem supporting these corporate treasuries has evolved significantly. This maturation, the firm suggests, reduces previous operational and security risks that may have concerned index providers. The push for inclusion is not merely symbolic. Gaining a spot in a major MSCI index can lead to significant inflows of capital from institutional investors and funds that track these benchmarks. It confers a mark of legitimacy and can enhance liquidity for the included stocks. Exclusion, conversely, limits access to a substantial pool of institutional capital. The public release of this detailed argument signals a strategic effort to shift the narrative and apply pressure through transparent, reasoned discourse. The firm is essentially inviting the financial establishment to update its frameworks to reflect a new class of corporate activity. The outcome of this debate could set a precedent for how traditional financial institutions categorize and interact with the growing sector of publicly-listed companies built around digital asset strategies. MSCI has not issued a public response to this latest communication.
