Analysis: If crypto treasury companies are removed from MSCI, $10–$15B in outflows could follow

On December 18, the advocacy group Bitcoin For Corporations warned that if MSCI proceeds with a proposed methodology change that excludes crypto treasury companies from its equity benchmarks, passive investors could be forced to dump $10–$15 billion worth of related exposure. Their estimate is based on a “verified preliminary list” of 39 publicly traded companies with a combined float-adjusted market capitalization of roughly $113 billion. While the headline risk centers on equities, such mechanical selling can reverberate into on-chain markets by constraining corporate balance-sheet demand for Bitcoin and other digital assets. See the recap and context, and the underlying MSCI materials. (Reference: BlockBeats recap; MSCI consultation document.)

• BlockBeats summary of the BFC estimate. (theblockbeats.info)
• MSCI consultation on Digital Asset Treasury Companies (DATCOs), including the preliminary security list and decision timeline. (msci.com)

What MSCI is consulting on and when it decides

MSCI is running a formal consultation on whether to exclude companies whose digital asset holdings represent 50% or more of total assets if their primary business is described as “digital asset treasury.” The document outlines a feedback window through December 31, 2025, with results due January 15, 2026, and any changes targeted for the February 2026 index review. The same document includes a preliminary list of 39 potentially impacted securities across markets. See MSCI’s consultation PDF for details. (msci.com)

Why does this matter? MSCI-linked products are systemically large. ETF assets tracking MSCI equity indexes surpassed $2 trillion in 2025, and more than $17 trillion in assets are benchmarked to MSCI indexes across vehicles. Even modest eligibility tweaks can trigger sizable index-tracking flows. (msci.com)

Sizing the potential flows

• Aggregate: Bitcoin For Corporations estimates $10–$15B in passive selling tied to companies on MSCI’s preliminary list. Their modeling references a float-adjusted universe near $113B and assumes typical index ownership and replication mechanics. (Industry recap; MSCI list.) (theblockbeats.info)
• Single-name lens: JPMorgan estimates that a removal of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) from MSCI indexes alone could prompt roughly $2.8B of passive outflows, rising toward $8.8B if other providers mirror MSCI’s move. Multiple outlets have reported these figures in recent weeks. (coindesk.com)

These projections underscore how index governance—especially classification decisions about what counts as an “operating company” versus a “fund”—can influence liquidity conditions far beyond the firms themselves.

Who’s on the preliminary list?

MSCI’s preliminary list spans 39 securities, including large, mid, and small caps across the U.S., Japan, Europe, and elsewhere. It captures both pure treasury plays and firms whose business models revolve around mining or financing strategies coupled with material digital-asset holdings. The list’s market-cap and float data are as of September 30, 2025. Review the list and methodology notes in MSCI’s consultation PDF. (msci.com)

For broader context on corporate Bitcoin treasuries—and why this cohort has become a market force—see recent overviews of corporate holdings and adoption trends from CoinDesk. (coindesk.com)

Key mechanics: how index changes translate into market impact

• Passive replication: Index funds and many ETFs must rebalance into or out of affected securities, typically on the effective date of a review, creating concentrated supply/demand. (MSCI’s decision timeline is Jan 15, 2026 for results; implementation targeted for February 2026 review.) (msci.com)
• Secondary effects: Firms that lose benchmark status can face higher capital costs, thinner liquidity, and reduced ability to issue equity or debt that finances digital-asset accumulation—potentially dampening corporate demand for BTC/ETH and increasing the odds of balance-sheet de-risking. Analysts and reporters have flagged these knock-on effects. (coindesk.com)
• Cross-index signaling: If other providers follow MSCI, the selling could cascade beyond one family of benchmarks, amplifying flows. (coindesk.com)

The debate: neutrality, comparability and accounting

Opponents argue the proposal breaks with long-standing benchmark neutrality and introduces cliff effects tied to volatile asset prices. They also note that differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS accounting for digital assets could yield inconsistent outcomes for similar companies across jurisdictions. Strive’s letter and coverage thereof summarize several of these concerns. (cointelegraph.com)

Meanwhile, MSCI’s consultation frames the issue around classification: if a company holds digital assets above a 50% threshold and its primary business is treasury activity, it may resemble an investment fund—entities that are typically excluded from broad equity indexes. Read the consultation itself for MSCI’s rationale and questions to market participants. (msci.com)

What to watch between now and February 2026

• Consultation close and decision: Feedback window closes December 31, 2025; results expected January 15, 2026. Implementation, if any, would be targeted for the February 2026 index review. (msci.com)
• Passive ownership disclosures: Monitor updated fund holdings and potential pre-positioning by index trackers around reconstitution. Context on the scale of MSCI-linked assets can be found here. (msci.com)
• Corporate treasury posture: Watch whether at-risk companies shift financing (e.g., reduce ATM issuance, adjust debt/preferred structures) or rebalance BTC/ETH holdings to stay under the proposed threshold. Reporting around single-name impacts provides helpful signposts. (coindesk.com)
• Broader adoption trendline: Even amid policy uncertainty, the number of public companies holding BTC has risen markedly in 2025. Track updated adoption studies to gauge whether index policy slows or merely reshapes corporate participation. (coindesk.com)

Practical takeaways for treasury teams and investors

• Scenario-test index risk: Model both equity outflow scenarios and second-order effects on balance-sheet digital assets under a variety of price paths and financing constraints. Use the MSCI list as a starting point for peer benchmarking. (msci.com)
• Strengthen treasury governance: Document the board-approved rationale and risk limits for any digital-asset treasury program, including triggers for hedging, deleveraging, or reserve diversification. Ensure governance frameworks are resilient to index classification shocks.
• Bolster custody resilience: In volatile or policy-sensitive windows, operational risk can be as harmful as market risk. Favor segregated cold storage, multi-approver workflows, and transparent, human‑readable signing to minimize transaction and key‑management error.

A note on securing corporate and personal treasuries

Regardless of MSCI’s final decision, robust self‑custody can insulate day‑to‑day operations from market microstructure shocks. For organizations and advanced users who run multi‑sig or need policy controls, a hardware wallet with audited, open‑source firmware, true offline signing, and high‑assurance secure elements is a pragmatic baseline. OneKey’s devices are built around EAL 6+ secure elements, support air‑gapped and clear‑signing workflows, and integrate well with multi‑chain stacks—features that help enforce policy and reduce operational risk during periods of index‑driven volatility. If your team expects to rebalance frequently or manage multiple signers, upgrading your custody stack before reconstitution dates can materially lower execution risk.

---

Further reading

• MSCI consultation on Digital Asset Treasury Companies (scope, 50% threshold, timeline, preliminary