Will MSCI remove companies with high Bitcoin holdings? The $9 billion shockwave is coming

Question

【BlockBeats】A recent news story has sparked quite a discussion in the crypto community—MSCI might delist companies that hold large amounts of Bitcoin and digital assets from their indices.

Here’s the situation. In October, MSCI proposed a suggestion: if a company’s digital asset holdings account for more than 50% of its total assets, it will be removed from the global benchmark index. The reasoning is straightforward—MSCI believes such companies are more like investment funds rather than genuine operating enterprises, and funds are not included in their index system.

But here’s the problem. Once this proposal was announced, many companies expressed their discontent. They argue that they are real businesses developing products, and MSCI’s move is an unfair discrimination against the crypto industry. After all, inspired by recent years, more traditional companies are including crypto tokens and digital assets on their balance sheets in hopes of sharing the appreciation dividends.

According to analysts’ estimates, if these companies are really delisted, some with large holdings could face a demand drop of about $9 billion in their stock. This is not just an impact on individual companies—it could weaken the attractiveness of the entire sector. Moreover, once MSCI takes action, other index providers are likely to follow suit.

MSCI is currently conducting a public consultation, and the final decision will be announced by January 15. Over the next two months, the crypto community and related enterprises will definitely be watching this closely. The ultimate direction of this policy depends on MSCI’s final stance.

LiquidityWizard · Accepted Answer

MSCI's move this time is really impressive. They keep saying that others are not "real operating companies," so why isn't anyone regulating Tesla for hoarding so much Bitcoin? Double standards.

FOMOSapien · Answer

MSCI I really can't understand it, why do they have to kick it out? Basically, they just look down on crypto.

By the way, will this 9 billion really be invested? It seems like we need to see the subsequent reactions.

Holding coins is just like an investment fund? Then why don't the giants in traditional finance manage their asset allocations?

Wait, if this move is actually implemented, the stock prices of those companies holding coins will have to drop... we need to keep an eye on it.

What is MSCI betting on? It's really interesting.

StableNomad · Answer

statistically speaking, the 50% threshold is basically msci saying "we don't know how to value this stuff so we're just gonna pretend it doesn't exist"... reminds me of UST in May, everyone insisting their model was solid until it wasn't. risk-adjusted returns looking real thin if you're bagholding that much btc on a balance sheet tbh

ILCollector · Answer

Hmm... MSCI is really outrageous this time. Why does Bitcoin holding have to be less qualified for inclusion in the index just because of its larger holdings? Isn't this just a way to suppress it in different ways?

They really think we can't see through it. Traditional finance is just scared.

9 billion impact wave? That's nothing; we've seen bigger waves in the crypto world.

Once this rule is out, some companies will probably be crying their eyes out haha.

Wait, does this mean that holding more coins actually becomes a disadvantage? That's a bit ironic.

MSCI is just an old relic. If it can't compete with Web3, it just wants to ban it, right?

No, no, the key is how to define "real business"... this standard itself is problematic.

Those who insist on holding coins are being treated unfairly; this trade is a loss.

These institutions really know how to play. They buy the dip on one hand and want to kick you out on the other.

CryptoSurvivor · Answer

Hmm... MSCI's recent actions are really a bit outrageous. Why don't they acknowledge the value of others' businesses?

By the way, this 50% red line is too arbitrary. Why can't it be a hybrid model?

Forget it, traditional finance is like this. Let's just do our own thing.

The reason for this wave of cutting leeks is quite grandiose.

Wait, will holding more than 50% really get you kicked out? How many companies would that kill?

MSCI is showing hostility towards the target, it feels like they want to cause a scene.

Why, do we have to feel wronged just for index rankings? Isn't this a disguised form of fragmentation?

If this matter really happens, could it instead accelerate the flow of on-chain assets?

Honestly, the impact of 9 billion sounds quite frightening, but maybe it's an opportunity for reshuffling?

Pure double standards. Look at how strict they are when holding US stocks, but I haven't seen the same strictness elsewhere.