The post Strive Opposes MSCI Proposal to Exclude Bitcoin-Heavy Firms from Global Indexes appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Strive, a Nasdaq-listed structured-finance firm and major Bitcoin holder, opposes MSCI’s plan to exclude companies with over 50% digital assets from global equity indexes, arguing it violates index neutrality and could distort markets for Bitcoin treasury strategies. Strive holds over 7,500 BTC, positioning it as one of the largest public corporate Bitcoin holders worldwide. MSCI’s proposed 50% threshold is criticized as overbroad, ignoring the diverse operations of Bitcoin-related firms beyond mere asset holding. Implementation could trigger up to $9 billion in market outflows if other index providers follow suit, per analyst estimates. Strive challenges MSCI’s Bitcoin exclusion rule: Discover why this Nasdaq firm fights for index inclusion and its impact on crypto markets. Stay informed on Bitcoin treasury strategies today. What is Strive’s Position on MSCI’s Bitcoin Exclusion Proposal? Strive’s position on MSCI’s Bitcoin exclusion proposal centers on preserving the neutrality of global equity benchmarks. In a letter to MSCI CEO Henry Fernandez, the Nasdaq-listed structured-finance company argues that excluding firms with significant digital asset holdings, such as Bitcoin, undermines long-established principles of fair indexing. Strive, which manages over 7,500 BTC on its balance sheet, emphasizes that indexes should reflect market realities without imposing special rules on digital currencies. This stance highlights the growing integration of Bitcoin treasuries in corporate finance, urging MSCI to avoid distortions that could harm investor access to these assets. Strive’s heritage in structured finance gives it a deep perspective on how Bitcoin-holding companies function within broader economic contexts. The firm warns that blanket exclusions would not only penalize innovative businesses but also limit the representation of real economic value in major benchmarks. By advocating for methodology based on digital currency markets, Strive aims to ensure equitable treatment for all sectors, including those leveraging cryptocurrency as a strategic reserve asset. Why Does Strive Argue the 50%… The post Strive Opposes MSCI Proposal to Exclude Bitcoin-Heavy Firms from Global Indexes appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Strive, a Nasdaq-listed structured-finance firm and major Bitcoin holder, opposes MSCI’s plan to exclude companies with over 50% digital assets from global equity indexes, arguing it violates index neutrality and could distort markets for Bitcoin treasury strategies. Strive holds over 7,500 BTC, positioning it as one of the largest public corporate Bitcoin holders worldwide. MSCI’s proposed 50% threshold is criticized as overbroad, ignoring the diverse operations of Bitcoin-related firms beyond mere asset holding. Implementation could trigger up to $9 billion in market outflows if other index providers follow suit, per analyst estimates. Strive challenges MSCI’s Bitcoin exclusion rule: Discover why this Nasdaq firm fights for index inclusion and its impact on crypto markets. Stay informed on Bitcoin treasury strategies today. What is Strive’s Position on MSCI’s Bitcoin Exclusion Proposal? Strive’s position on MSCI’s Bitcoin exclusion proposal centers on preserving the neutrality of global equity benchmarks. In a letter to MSCI CEO Henry Fernandez, the Nasdaq-listed structured-finance company argues that excluding firms with significant digital asset holdings, such as Bitcoin, undermines long-established principles of fair indexing. Strive, which manages over 7,500 BTC on its balance sheet, emphasizes that indexes should reflect market realities without imposing special rules on digital currencies. This stance highlights the growing integration of Bitcoin treasuries in corporate finance, urging MSCI to avoid distortions that could harm investor access to these assets. Strive’s heritage in structured finance gives it a deep perspective on how Bitcoin-holding companies function within broader economic contexts. The firm warns that blanket exclusions would not only penalize innovative businesses but also limit the representation of real economic value in major benchmarks. By advocating for methodology based on digital currency markets, Strive aims to ensure equitable treatment for all sectors, including those leveraging cryptocurrency as a strategic reserve asset. Why Does Strive Argue the 50%…

Strive Opposes MSCI Proposal to Exclude Bitcoin-Heavy Firms from Global Indexes

2025/12/06 10:45
  • Strive holds over 7,500 BTC, positioning it as one of the largest public corporate Bitcoin holders worldwide.

  • MSCI’s proposed 50% threshold is criticized as overbroad, ignoring the diverse operations of Bitcoin-related firms beyond mere asset holding.

  • Implementation could trigger up to $9 billion in market outflows if other index providers follow suit, per analyst estimates.

Strive challenges MSCI’s Bitcoin exclusion rule: Discover why this Nasdaq firm fights for index inclusion and its impact on crypto markets. Stay informed on Bitcoin treasury strategies today.

What is Strive’s Position on MSCI’s Bitcoin Exclusion Proposal?

Strive’s position on MSCI’s Bitcoin exclusion proposal centers on preserving the neutrality of global equity benchmarks. In a letter to MSCI CEO Henry Fernandez, the Nasdaq-listed structured-finance company argues that excluding firms with significant digital asset holdings, such as Bitcoin, undermines long-established principles of fair indexing. Strive, which manages over 7,500 BTC on its balance sheet, emphasizes that indexes should reflect market realities without imposing special rules on digital currencies. This stance highlights the growing integration of Bitcoin treasuries in corporate finance, urging MSCI to avoid distortions that could harm investor access to these assets.

Strive’s heritage in structured finance gives it a deep perspective on how Bitcoin-holding companies function within broader economic contexts. The firm warns that blanket exclusions would not only penalize innovative businesses but also limit the representation of real economic value in major benchmarks. By advocating for methodology based on digital currency markets, Strive aims to ensure equitable treatment for all sectors, including those leveraging cryptocurrency as a strategic reserve asset.

Why Does Strive Argue the 50% Digital Asset Threshold is Flawed?

Strive contends that MSCI’s proposed 50% digital asset threshold for exclusion from indexes is fundamentally flawed due to its lack of nuance and practicality. This rule fails to recognize the multifaceted nature of companies involved in Bitcoin, many of which operate robust businesses in areas like AI-driven data centers, structured finance, and digital asset services. For instance, prominent Bitcoin miners such as Marathon Digital, Riot Platforms, Hut 8, and CleanSpark have evolved beyond mining to lease surplus power, computing resources, and data-center facilities to cloud and hyperscale clients, generating substantial revenue from these diversified activities.

According to Strive’s analysis, enforcing such a threshold overlooks these operational diversifications, potentially eliminating significant economic contributions from global benchmarks. Moreover, accounting discrepancies exacerbate the issue: Under U.S. GAAP, digital assets like Bitcoin are marked to fair market value quarterly, which can inflate apparent concentrations, while IFRS allows cost-basis carrying in many regions. This variance could lead to inconsistent treatment of similar companies based solely on reporting jurisdiction, as noted in Strive’s letter. Expert opinions from financial analysts, including those cited in recent Bloomberg reports, echo these concerns, highlighting how such rules could inadvertently favor certain accounting regimes over others.

To address these shortcomings, Strive proposes a more balanced alternative: MSCI should develop optional index variants, such as “ex-digital-asset-treasury” versions, similar to existing “ex-energy” or “ex-tobacco” screens. This approach would allow risk-averse investors to self-select exclusions without imposing them universally, maintaining overall index integrity. Data from index provider studies shows that screened variants already account for targeted preferences without disrupting core benchmarks, supporting Strive’s call for flexibility. By prioritizing fairness and market reflection, this solution could prevent unintended market distortions while accommodating diverse investor needs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will Strive Be Excluded from MSCI Indexes Due to Its Bitcoin Holdings?

Strive’s substantial Bitcoin holdings, exceeding 7,500 BTC or over 50% of its assets, place it at risk of exclusion under MSCI’s proposed rule. The firm argues this would contradict index neutrality principles, potentially leading to billions in passive fund outflows. MSCI’s final decision, expected in early 2025, will determine if such companies remain eligible for global equity benchmarks.

What Are the Market Implications of MSCI Excluding Bitcoin-Heavy Companies?

If MSCI implements the exclusion, it could redirect up to $2.8 billion from tracked funds for firms like Strive alone, with total impacts nearing $9 billion if competitors mimic the policy. This shift might reduce institutional demand for Bitcoin treasuries, affecting share prices and crypto market liquidity. Investors should monitor how this influences broader adoption of digital assets in corporate strategies.

Key Takeaways

  • Index Neutrality at Stake: Strive’s opposition underscores the need for benchmarks to treat digital assets like traditional holdings, avoiding special exclusions that could bias markets.
  • Diversification Overlooked: Many Bitcoin firms, including miners, have expanded into AI infrastructure and energy leasing, making a strict 50% threshold overly punitive and unrepresentative of their full operations.
  • Investor Choice Essential: Optional screened indexes provide a fairer path, empowering users to avoid Bitcoin exposure without penalizing the wider market or innovative corporate treasuries.

Conclusion

In summary, Strive’s position on MSCI’s Bitcoin exclusion proposal highlights critical tensions in integrating digital assets into traditional finance, where the flawed 50% threshold risks unfair treatment and market disruptions for Bitcoin-heavy companies. By drawing on its expertise as a major BTC holder, Strive advocates for neutral, adaptable indexing that reflects evolving corporate strategies. As the cryptocurrency sector matures, decisions like MSCI’s will shape institutional investment flows—investors are encouraged to follow developments closely and consider diversified portfolios that balance innovation with risk management in the years ahead.

Source: https://en.coinotag.com/strive-opposes-msci-proposal-to-exclude-bitcoin-heavy-firms-from-global-indexes

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers

Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers

The post Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On Dec. 2, Citadel Securities filed a 13-page letter with the SEC arguing that decentralized protocols facilitating tokenized US equity trading already meet statutory definitions of exchanges and broker-dealers, and regulators should treat them accordingly. Two days later, the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee convened a panel on tokenized equities that made clear the question is no longer whether stocks can move on-chain, but whether they can do so without dismantling the permissionless architecture that built DeFi. The gap between those two positions now defines the most consequential regulatory fight in crypto since the Howey test debates. Citadel’s letter arrived at the moment when tokenized equities stopped being a thought experiment. The firm welcomes tokenization in principle but insists that realizing its benefits requires applying “the key bedrock principles and investor protections that underpin the fairness, efficiency, and resiliency of US equity markets.” In other words, the document suggests that companies seeking to trade tokenized Apple shares must comply with Nasdaq rules, including transparent fees, consolidated tape reporting, market surveillance, fair access, and registration as an exchange or broker-dealer. The filing warns that granting broad exemptive relief to DeFi platforms creates a shadow US equity market in which liquidity fragments, retail investors lose Exchange Act protections, and incumbents face regulatory arbitrage from unregistered competitors. Within hours, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams fired back on X, calling Citadel’s position an attempt to “treat software developers of decentralized protocols like centralized intermediaries.” He invoked ConstitutionDAO, the 2021 crowdfunding effort that pooled $47 million in Ethereum to bid on a first-edition Constitution at Sotheby’s, only to lose to Griffin’s $43.2 million bid. Additionally, Adams zeroed in on Citadel’s fair-access argument, calling it “actual nerve” from the dominant player in retail order flow. The exchange captured crypto’s core narrative of permissionless code versus gatekeeper control and…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/07 02:32
RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved

RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved

The post RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Takeaways: Seven major Chinese financial associations issued a coordinated warning against RWA tokenization and all virtual-currency-related activity. Regulators stressed that no RWA tokenization projects are authorized in China, citing risks of fraud, speculation, and illegal fundraising. Institutions and individuals were told to avoid all forms of crypto involvement, while enforcement measures widen to include foreign firms serving mainland users. China has delivered one of its strongest signals yet that crypto-linked products, especially RWA tokenization remain firmly off-limits. A rare joint notice issued by seven national financial associations warns that emerging narratives around “stablecoins,” “air coins,” mining, and tokenized real-world assets are now being used as fronts for fraudulent fundraising, cross-border fund transfers, and market manipulation. Below is a structured, journalist-style breakdown of the alert, written uniquely, with expanded insights to help readers understand the regulatory landscape and its implications for global crypto markets. Read More: China to Shake Crypto Markets With First-Ever Yuan Stablecoin Plan Amid U.S. Dollar Dominance China’s Joint Warning: RWA Tokenization Not Approved and Considered High-Risk China’s latest advisory makes it clear that the rapid rise of RWA tokenization in global markets does not translate into tolerance at home. The notice states that financial regulators have not approved any RWA token issuance, trading, or financing activities inside the mainland. Officials emphasized that tokenizing traditional assets such as bonds, real estate claims, or corporate receivables introduces several layers of risk. These include: Fake or unverifiable underlying assets Operational and governance failures Speculative hype marketed as financial innovation Use of RWA tokens for illegal fundraising or unapproved securities issuance The message is unambiguous: any assumption that RWAs occupy a regulatory grey zone in China is incorrect. They are grouped alongside virtual currencies, mining schemes, and stablecoins as activities that can trigger criminal liability when conducted domestically. Why RWAs…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/07 02:40