MicroStrategy phản công quyết liệt việc MSCI loại bỏ, bảo vệ tính hợp pháp của doanh nghiệp sở hữu Bitcoin

To the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holder MicroStrategy, a major crisis is looming: facing potential exclusion from mainstream stock indices. The global index giant MSCI has proposed removing companies whose cryptocurrency assets exceed 50% of their total assets from its indices. MicroStrategy’s Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and CEO Phong Le jointly wrote a letter sharply criticizing the proposal as “misleading and harmful,” warning that it would directly conflict with U.S. government policies promoting innovation. This confrontation concerns not only the potential $2.8 billion passive fund outflow from MicroStrategy but also a “standards battle” that will determine how crypto assets are positioned within traditional financial systems.

The Rules Dispute: MSCI’s “50% Red Line” and MicroStrategy’s Fourfold Rebuttal

At the heart of this turmoil is MSCI’s consultation proposal to update its index construction methodology. The proposal sets a clear “50% red line”: if a company’s cryptocurrency holdings surpass half of its total assets, it may be deemed unsuitable to remain as a constituent in relevant indices. For MicroStrategy, which treats Bitcoin as a core asset on its balance sheet, this rule is akin to a tailored “expulsion order”—the company currently holds about $61 billion worth of Bitcoin, accounting for over 85% of its total enterprise value, far exceeding the proposed threshold.

Facing the threat of being excluded from indices and the resulting potential massive passive fund outflows, MicroStrategy has chosen to fight back hard. The company submitted a detailed 12-page rebuttal letter to MSCI, launching a comprehensive defense from four dimensions: technical, accounting, political, and financial fairness. The core argument in the letter directly questions the arbitrariness and discrimination of MSCI’s rules. Saylor and others sharply ask: why are companies that concentrate most of their assets in commodities like oil, gold, or timber not subject to similar restrictions, while digital assets are singled out? They argue this constitutes an unfair suppression of emerging digital asset businesses.

Furthermore, MicroStrategy emphasizes clarifying the essence of its business model, distinguishing itself from mere passive holdings. The company stresses that it is not a simple Bitcoin “ETF substitute” or investment wrapper, but an active enterprise utilizing its Bitcoin reserves for strategic operations and generating excess returns for shareholders. Classifying and excluding such a company is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the “digital asset sovereign debt” business model.

MicroStrategy’s Counterpoints and Data on MSCI Proposal

MicroStrategy Bitcoin holdings: approximately $61 billion

Holdings as a proportion of enterprise value: over 85%

Core MSCI rule: Companies with cryptocurrency assets exceeding 50% of total assets may be excluded

Direct capital risk: J.P. Morgan estimates that if excluded, MicroStrategy could face up to $2.8 billion in passive fund outflows

Timing window for rule decision: MSCI expects to decide before January 15

Industry coalition: Strive Asset Management, co-founded by ex-presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, also publicly opposes similar rules

Market Impact: Is the Exclusion Risk “Priced In” as a “Bad News” or the Beginning of a New Storm?

Once MSCI’s proposal is implemented, its most direct and quantifiable impact will be the massive passive capital migration. For example, analysts at J.P. Morgan have estimated that just this one company could trigger forced sell-offs of up to $2.8 billion in index funds. A more severe scenario is that, as a benchmark setter, MSCI’s rule change could trigger a “demonstration effect,” prompting other index providers like S&P and FTSE Russell to follow suit, leading to a larger capital outflow wave and systemic shocks to the entire listed digital asset sector.

However, the complexity of financial markets lies in the constant anticipation game. Interestingly, J.P. Morgan’s analysis also notes that because MicroStrategy’s stock has long traded at a significant discount relative to its Bitcoin net asset value, the market may have partly priced in the potential index exclusion risk in advance. Thus, during the period leading up to the January 15 final decision, this could evolve into a “good news already priced in” observation window. If MSCI is pressured to amend its rules or, even if MicroStrategy is excluded, its fundamentals and Bitcoin strategy remain intact, the stock price could instead see a wave of expected recovery.

Nevertheless, short-term volatility and pain are almost unavoidable. Mechanical sell-offs of index funds will create clear selling pressure, potentially accelerating the downward trend. This event also sounds an alarm for all listed companies with similar business models: while embracing crypto assets, they must carefully evaluate the “institutional risks” beyond market price fluctuations that they face within the traditional financial framework.

Paradigm Clash: Why Do Outdated Financial Standards Fail to Measure Crypto-Native Strategies?

The confrontation between MicroStrategy and MSCI is not an isolated corporate dispute; it fundamentally reveals the widening gap between traditional financial evaluation frameworks and crypto-native innovative business models. The first issue is the mismatch in accounting standards. Current accounting rules treat Bitcoin-like volatile assets as “intangible assets,” requiring impairment when prices fall. This approach fails to reflect their long-term store-of-value characteristics and severely distorts the true financial health of companies like MicroStrategy. The company’s letter also explicitly points out that MSCI’s rules ignore the core dynamics of balance sheet management.

This debate is set against a larger political and policy backdrop. In its rebuttal, MicroStrategy cleverly cites executive orders from the Trump administration aimed at promoting digital financial innovation, accusing MSCI’s proposal of “direct conflict with current government policies favoring innovation and growth.” This signals that the crypto industry’s defense strategy has evolved, linking corporate interests with national industrial competitiveness, economic innovation, and even national security (the letter mentions that such actions “damage national security”), attempting to secure more favorable policy positioning.

Deeper still is the philosophical question about the “index” itself. As the CEO of Strive Asset Management, who also submitted an opposition, states, index providers should serve as objective, neutral mirrors reflecting the entire market, rather than acting as “judges” pre-judging and filtering based on certain business models’ success. If MSCI sets such exclusionary clauses, it could undermine confidence in its product’s neutrality and reliability.

Industry Revelation: The Crossroads and Future Evolution of the DAT Model

MicroStrategy is the pioneer and most successful practitioner of the “digital asset sovereign debt” (DAT) model. This approach was wildly popular in the bull market, creating wealth myths where stock prices soared far beyond Bitcoin’s gains, attracting capital from Silicon Valley venture godfather Peter Thiel and the Trump family among others. However, as the market enters a correction phase, most DAT companies’ stock prices have plummeted, even falling below the net value of their token holdings, exposing the model’s fragility and high volatility in bear markets.

MSCI’s proposal can be seen as a serious “stress test” of this emerging model within the traditional financial system. It forces the industry to reconsider: should a listed company with most assets invested in Bitcoin be classified as a forward-looking asset allocation strategy tech company or as a re-categorized and specially regulated alternative investment vehicle? The answer will profoundly influence future regulatory policies and the willingness and methods for more firms to adopt similar strategies.

For investors, this event offers a key risk assessment dimension. Investing in DAT-type companies requires not only a judgment of Bitcoin’s long-term trend but also an assessment of their “compliance survival ability” under current financial rules. This includes, but is not limited to: exchange listing status, inclusion in mainstream indices, recognition by auditors and accounting methods. These non-market factors can sometimes determine a company’s long-term fate.

Conclusion

MicroStrategy’s fierce rebuttal to MSCI’s proposal is not just a corporate fight for survival but also a landmark battle in the process of crypto assets seeking full acceptance by mainstream finance. Regardless of the January 15 ruling, this debate has brought the deep contradictions between traditional financial standards and crypto innovation into the spotlight.

If MSCI insists on the new regulation, it will trigger a restructuring of passive investment flows in the short term and may cool the enthusiasm of traditional listed companies to allocate heavily to crypto assets; if it concedes, it will signify that crypto-native business models have gained a crucial recognition in the long journey of integrating into mainstream financial infrastructure. It is certain that as more institutions enter crypto, similar clashes and adjustments will become the new normal. For every market participant, understanding the underlying implications of this “rules war,” learning to evaluate the embedded “institutional alpha” and risks, has become increasingly critical. MicroStrategy’s counterattack, regardless of outcome, has left a profound reflection and annotation for the industry.