Source: TokenPost
Original Title: Bitcoin Companies Face Off Against MSCI Policy Exclusion… Strategy Sends Official Letter
Original Link:
Background
Bitcoin asset management firm Strategy has submitted an official opposition to the global stock index compiler MSCI. This move is a response to MSCI’s announcement of a policy to exclude “digital asset operating companies” from market indices.
MSCI’s New Policy
Last week, MSCI announced it was reviewing a plan to exclude companies with more than 50% of their assets in digital assets like Bitcoin from stock indices. This policy essentially targets publicly traded companies like Strategy that have Bitcoin as a core asset on their balance sheets.
Strategy’s Opposition
Company leader Michael Saylor stated, “This proposal is unfair, biased, and will inevitably hinder technological innovation,” and strongly urged MSCI to withdraw the policy.
In an open letter, Strategy advocates:
Digital asset holding companies are not just simple investment funds, but genuine operational enterprises
They should be treated the same as companies with specific assets like cash or raw materials
The Issue with the Policy
Strategy criticizes MSCI’s new policy as “arbitrary and discriminatory.” So far, MSCI has never excluded companies from its stock indices based on the industry or the proportion of individual assets held. This unprecedented policy is actually an asset avoidance measure for digital assets.
Strategy points out that if MSCI selectively screens specific assets or industries, it would violate the core principles of market neutrality and global standards.
Conflict with Government Policy
Strategy emphasizes that this decision conflicts with the direction of the US government’s digital asset policies. The US recognizes Bitcoin and other digital assets as the infrastructure of the next-generation economy and finance, and hopes US companies will play a central role.
Potential Impact
If MSCI’s proposal is implemented, not only Strategy but many publicly traded companies with digital assets as a core business strategy could be excluded from global indices, potentially leading to rejection by institutional investment funds. This could pose a deadly constraint on technology-driven financial innovation.
Industry Perspective
Strategy warns, “Bitcoin is forming the foundation of a new financial system, and US companies are best positioned to lead this transformation. Excluding this innovation from indices will harm investors, businesses, and markets.”
Market Interpretation
The inclusion or exclusion in global stock indices is crucial for institutional investment inflows and investor confidence. MSCI’s proposal could negatively impact the market accessibility and valuation of digitally asset-focused publicly traded companies.
Strategic Significance
Strategy’s response is not only an internal defense but also a policy protest for the entire digital asset industry. Given regulatory obstacles blocking institutional investment inflows, there is also the possibility of industry-wide unity.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
Bitcoin companies face exponential exclusion threats, Strategy company formally opposes MSCI
Source: TokenPost Original Title: Bitcoin Companies Face Off Against MSCI Policy Exclusion… Strategy Sends Official Letter Original Link:
Background
Bitcoin asset management firm Strategy has submitted an official opposition to the global stock index compiler MSCI. This move is a response to MSCI’s announcement of a policy to exclude “digital asset operating companies” from market indices.
MSCI’s New Policy
Last week, MSCI announced it was reviewing a plan to exclude companies with more than 50% of their assets in digital assets like Bitcoin from stock indices. This policy essentially targets publicly traded companies like Strategy that have Bitcoin as a core asset on their balance sheets.
Strategy’s Opposition
Company leader Michael Saylor stated, “This proposal is unfair, biased, and will inevitably hinder technological innovation,” and strongly urged MSCI to withdraw the policy.
In an open letter, Strategy advocates:
The Issue with the Policy
Strategy criticizes MSCI’s new policy as “arbitrary and discriminatory.” So far, MSCI has never excluded companies from its stock indices based on the industry or the proportion of individual assets held. This unprecedented policy is actually an asset avoidance measure for digital assets.
Strategy points out that if MSCI selectively screens specific assets or industries, it would violate the core principles of market neutrality and global standards.
Conflict with Government Policy
Strategy emphasizes that this decision conflicts with the direction of the US government’s digital asset policies. The US recognizes Bitcoin and other digital assets as the infrastructure of the next-generation economy and finance, and hopes US companies will play a central role.
Potential Impact
If MSCI’s proposal is implemented, not only Strategy but many publicly traded companies with digital assets as a core business strategy could be excluded from global indices, potentially leading to rejection by institutional investment funds. This could pose a deadly constraint on technology-driven financial innovation.
Industry Perspective
Strategy warns, “Bitcoin is forming the foundation of a new financial system, and US companies are best positioned to lead this transformation. Excluding this innovation from indices will harm investors, businesses, and markets.”
Market Interpretation
The inclusion or exclusion in global stock indices is crucial for institutional investment inflows and investor confidence. MSCI’s proposal could negatively impact the market accessibility and valuation of digitally asset-focused publicly traded companies.
Strategic Significance
Strategy’s response is not only an internal defense but also a policy protest for the entire digital asset industry. Given regulatory obstacles blocking institutional investment inflows, there is also the possibility of industry-wide unity.