Strategy CEO Phong Le Slams MSCI Proposal to Remove Crypto-Heavy Firms from Indexes
MSCI opened a consultation in October proposing that firms whose balance sheets are majority-held in cryptocurrencies (digital asset treasuries, or DATs) be excluded from its market indexes. Strategy CEO Phong Le publicly criticised the proposal on the Schwab Network and in written feedback to MSCI, calling it unfair, premature and biased against crypto as an asset class. He argued that treating operating companies that hold Bitcoin or other digital assets as if they were investment funds mischaracterises their business — likening the suggested exclusion to removing energy firms for holding oil or telecoms for building cell towers. Affected companies such as Strive have urged MSCI to reconsider. MSCI will accept feedback until December 31, publish conclusions by January 15, and implement any changes in February. For traders, the debate raises indexation risk: exclusion of DAT-heavy public firms could reduce passive inflows linked to Bitcoin exposure, alter index compositions, and affect institutional access and sentiment toward BTC. Primary SEO keywords: MSCI crypto ban, digital asset treasury, Bitcoin holdings. Secondary keywords: index exclusion, Strategy CEO, crypto regulation.
Neutral
The news focuses on index-provider rules and potential exclusion of DAT-heavy firms rather than new on-chain developments or regulatory bans directly targeting Bitcoin. Short-term impact on BTC price is likely limited and uncertain: if MSCI excludes such companies, passive flows tied to index-weighted exposure to firms with large BTC treasuries could decline, creating modest downward pressure on BTC demand from equity-linked channels. However, MSCI’s consultation process is iterative and not final — feedback may lead to revisions or no change. Long-term effects depend on whether major index providers adopt exclusionary policies broadly. If many indexes remove DAT firms, institutional routes to indirect BTC exposure via listed equities could shrink, reducing secular demand and weighing on sentiment. Conversely, strong pushback from firms and investors could prevent exclusions and have little effect. Given these offsetting possibilities and the procedural nature of the consultation, classify the immediate market effect as neutral.