Strategy just dropped their official response to MSCI's consultation about digital asset treasury companies making it into major indices.
Their stance? Pretty straightforward. Index standards need to stay neutral. Can't be playing favorites. They should remain consistent across different asset classes and mirror how global markets actually move and evolve.
This matters because we're talking about whether companies holding significant crypto treasuries get properly recognized in traditional financial indices. The criteria shouldn't discriminate just because balance sheets include Bitcoin or other digital assets.
Strategy's pushing for fair treatment here. They want evaluation frameworks that acknowledge treasury diversification into crypto as a legitimate corporate strategy, not some edge case that gets special rules.
The consultation period represents a real opportunity to shape how institutional finance views digital asset adoption. If index methodologies adapt, it could validate corporate crypto strategies at the highest level of traditional finance.
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.
8 Likes
Reward
8
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasFeeCrybaby
· 18h ago
Really, if MSCI still engages in discrimination this time, it would be too outrageous. Why should crypto companies' treasuries be considered worse than traditional assets...
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeTherapist
· 12-11 14:19
It's the same old story again, the index needs to be neutral, no favoritism... Sounds good in theory, but will MSCI really change? I bet five bucks it's the same old approach.
View OriginalReply0
MagicBean
· 12-10 15:02
Whoa, MSCI has finally been pushed, and now the index might really have to change its rules.
View OriginalReply0
NftMetaversePainter
· 12-10 14:58
actually, the real paradigm shift here isn't just about index inclusion—it's the algorithmic beauty of forcing traditional finance to confront their own computational bias against digital sovereignty. Strategy's essaying what amounts to a hash-based validation of corporate legitimacy through the immutable lens of market mechanics.
Reply0
YieldFarmRefugee
· 12-10 14:57
To be honest, this move is just forcing traditional finance to recognize the legitimacy of crypto assets. We can't pretend not to see it anymore.
View OriginalReply0
HashBrownies
· 12-10 14:37
Wait, is Strategy mocking MSCI? It's just to prevent traditional finance from giving preferential treatment.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketSurvivor
· 12-10 14:33
To put it simply, whether MSCI can be reasonable at this critical moment directly determines if the subsequent supply lines are long enough. Neutral standards sound good, but who would believe them in a real confrontation... Let's wait and see how they act.
Strategy just dropped their official response to MSCI's consultation about digital asset treasury companies making it into major indices.
Their stance? Pretty straightforward. Index standards need to stay neutral. Can't be playing favorites. They should remain consistent across different asset classes and mirror how global markets actually move and evolve.
This matters because we're talking about whether companies holding significant crypto treasuries get properly recognized in traditional financial indices. The criteria shouldn't discriminate just because balance sheets include Bitcoin or other digital assets.
Strategy's pushing for fair treatment here. They want evaluation frameworks that acknowledge treasury diversification into crypto as a legitimate corporate strategy, not some edge case that gets special rules.
The consultation period represents a real opportunity to shape how institutional finance views digital asset adoption. If index methodologies adapt, it could validate corporate crypto strategies at the highest level of traditional finance.