Written by: KarenZ, Foresight News

On January 6, a notice from index provider giant MSCI brought a glimmer of hope to the beleaguered Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies: in the index review scheduled for February 2026, MSCI decided not to proceed with the proposal to exclude them from the Global Investable Market Index (GIMI).

This means that companies that were placed on the watchlist due to their substantial holdings of digital assets like Bitcoin have temporarily retained their positions in the MSCI index.

However, MSCI also announced a series of restrictions and plans to initiate broader consultations regarding all "non-operating companies" to comprehensively review how non-operating companies are treated in the index. MSCI defines "non-operating companies" as those that hold non-operating assets like digital assets as core operational elements (rather than for investment purposes).

This decision reflects the traditional financial system's cautious and compromising approach to accepting digital assets; it is not a simple "compromise," but a rational choice recognizing the complexity of the issues.

Withdrawal of Position Under Fourfold Paradox

Tracing back to the source of this game, in October 2025, MSCI proposed to exclude companies holding 50% or more of their total assets in digital assets from its Global Investable Market Index. The core logic seemed reasonable—upholding the index's positioning as "reflecting the performance of operating companies" by excluding DATCOs, which are closer to investment funds—but in practice, it fell into a fourfold paradox.

• The arbitrariness of standards. Strategy sharply questioned in an open letter to MSCI that oil giants, REITs, and other companies also hold a highly concentrated single category of assets but are not subject to special restrictions, suggesting a double standard only targeting digital asset companies.
• The infeasibility of execution. The extreme volatility of digital asset prices could lead to companies repeatedly entering and exiting the index due to asset value fluctuations, compounded by differences in accounting standards, resulting in market chaos and unfair treatment.
• The overreach of position. As an index provider, MSCI should remain neutral, yet this proposal essentially represents a subjective denial of the value of digital assets.
• Contradiction with the U.S. digital asset strategy.

MSCI's shift in position is fundamentally a result of strong corporate resistance, constraints of market realities, and industry trends compelling change. Companies like Strategy, representing DAT, did not passively accept the ruling but actively called for MSCI to withdraw the digital asset proposal through public letters or joint initiatives. This resistance precisely targeted the proposal's flaws and made MSCI realize that simple exclusion could not address the reality of digital assets increasingly integrating into corporate balance sheets.

Additionally, MSCI's proposal to conduct a broader review of "non-operating companies" touches on the core dilemma of modern corporate classification: in the digital economy era, many companies' business models blur this boundary.

What Are the Restrictions?

One easily overlooked but crucial detail in the announcement is that MSCI will not implement adjustments based on "Number of Shares Outstanding (NOS)," "Foreign Inclusion Factor (FIF)," or "Domestic Inclusion Factor (DIF)" for these securities.

Furthermore, MSCI will suspend all "size segment migrations" for such companies. This means that even if their market capitalization rises to meet the standards for large-cap stocks, they will remain in their original positions. Another point is that no new companies of this type will be accepted into the index for the time being.

It is clear that MSCI's attitude remains cautious. By "freezing weight increases" and "suspending size migrations," MSCI effectively limits these companies' influence in the index while also buying time to formulate a set of universal rules that can encompass all "investment-like companies."

What Is the Impact?

In the short term, the liquidity crisis for individual stocks like MicroStrategy has been temporarily alleviated, eliminating the risk of large-scale withdrawals by passive funds.

However, in the long term, this is not a permanent exemption. MSCI has explicitly stated that it will conduct broader consultations and study new standards based on financial statements. This means that a more stringent and systematic set of screening rules is in the works.

From the perspective of long-term industry development, this event marks the deepening integration of digital assets with the traditional financial system. As digital assets become increasingly common on corporate balance sheets, index providers face not a question of "whether to include" but a necessary question of "how to scientifically classify." MSCI's exploration may further drive index peers to establish unified standards.

The ultimate outcome of this game will reshape the boundaries of corporate asset allocation and the underlying logic of index compilation.

In this process, sufficient market consultation and transparent rule disclosure, how to quantify and assess the substantive operational value of companies related to digital assets, and how to balance financial innovation with risk prevention will be core prerequisites for achieving the true integration of digital assets into the traditional financial system and realizing a win-win situation for all parties involved.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。