MSCI i MicroStrategy: Does the decision to stay in the index change the game?

In March 2025, MSCI’s decision to include companies holding significant digital assets in global indices sparked lively discussions within the institutional investor community. For MicroStrategy – the company that transformed from a business analytics operator into one of the largest corporate Bitcoin holders – this means restoring stability. However, Mark Palmer from Benchmark warns: this is not a complete victory, but rather a temporary agreement.

What exactly did MSCI decide?

The core of the decision revolves around a fundamental question: should companies that accumulate digital assets on their balance sheets but do not engage in core blockchain operations deserve a place in leading stock indices? According to CoinDesk reports, MSCI chose a more nuanced approach instead of immediate removal – they postponed a full assessment to the future.

For MicroStrategy, this means a breath of relief. Index-tracking funds and ETFs counted in the thousands that follow MSCI ( would be forced to sell their shares if excluded. Such a move could trigger a significant price drop. The current decision maintains the status quo – shares remain in portfolios, and indices are not disrupted.

However, shadows are looming on the horizon

Although the decision sounds positive, Palmer points out a key caveat: MSCI announced a review of criteria for so-called “holding companies not conducting operational activities.” This wording is precise – it concerns entities primarily created as vehicles for holding Bitcoin without engaging in actual technological operations.

The difference between a business that integrally utilizes Bitcoin and one that merely stores it will become crucial for MSCI’s future assessments. MicroStrategy falls in the middle of this categorization: its traditional enterprise software business exists alongside a massive Bitcoin position. Whether this balance will hold remains an open question.

Impact on the market and investment strategies

From the market participants’ perspective, the decision provides immediate stability. MicroStrategy’s shares function as a leveraged proxy for Bitcoin exposure – especially since the main asset is a corporate strategy focused on accumulating digital assets. Forced sales resulting from index exclusion could cause disproportionate price movements relative to Bitcoin’s price itself.

Thus, both institutional and individual investors received confirmation: MicroStrategy’s business model, at least for now, does not face outright disapproval from major index providers.

Transparency as a key to the future

An interesting factor in this game is information disclosure. MicroStrategy regularly publishes detailed reports on Bitcoin purchases, holdings, and digital asset valuations. This level of transparency could work in its favor during future re-evaluations – more transparent entities may receive preferential treatment, while less transparent structures face increased scrutiny.

The market might thus observe a scenario where companies with clear, audited digital asset reporting remain in indices, while less communicative entities risk exclusion. This would naturally promote better practices across the sector.

Broader context: from caution to adaptation

Index providers like MSCI, S&P Dow Jones, and FTSE Russell always act conservatively. They manage trillion-dollar portfolios where clarity and stability matter more than rapid innovation. The rise of Bitcoin as a corporate treasury asset, initiated by MicroStrategy in 2020, was a novelty for traditional financial architectures.

The current decision is not a revolution but an evolution. MSCI is choosing a path of gathering more data, observing the behavior of these strategies through full market cycles and varying regulatory environments, rather than issuing final judgments. This approach allows for further changes without drastic market upheavals.

Future outlook: New questions, same challenges

How will MSCI ultimately define “real blockchain operations” versus mere asset holdings? Will companies need to generate a certain percentage of revenue from blockchain services? These questions remain unanswered – and they form the core of regulatory uncertainty for all enterprises pursuing strategies based on digital assets.

MicroStrategy and its competitors now operate in conditional mode. Short-term benefits of remaining in indices are tangible, but long-term policy change risks should not be underestimated. Companies must continuously demonstrate that their operational activities constitute an authentic, revenue-generating reality alongside their digital asset strategies.

Implications for the entire sector

MSCI’s decision has set a precedent – but one of limited durability. Every listed company with significant Bitcoin holdings will now be subject to this future assessment. This presents both opportunities and risks for firms adopting the MicroStrategy model.

For more transparent operators who clearly communicate their digital asset strategies and maintain clean balance sheets, the decision opens doors. For less transparent entities, risks are increasing.

The final verdict

MSCI chose pragmatism over absolutism. MicroStrategy received a temporary confirmation that its Bitcoin-focused corporate strategy is suitable for inclusion in global indices. However, this confirmation carries an expiration date – future reviews of criteria could alter this calculus.

The market has temporarily breathed a sigh of relief. But the discussion about the place of cryptocurrencies within traditional financial frameworks continues and is far from over. Companies must remain ready to adapt, and investors must brace for volatility in what once seemed stable.