The Bitcoin Policy Institute has raised concerns over a proposal by index provider MSCI that could exclude certain companies holding large digital asset or commodity positions from its global equity benchmarks. In a paper released as the public comment period closed, the institute examined the methodology and underlying materials for the plan, which builds on an earlier crypto-focused review that was paused earlier this year.

Background of the Eligibility Review

MSCI first advanced a plan in 2025 to remove digital asset treasury companies from selected global indexes. After receiving pushback, the firm set that approach aside in January 2026 and stated it would examine non-operating companies on a wider basis. On August 3, 2026, MSCI issued a new consultation outlining a framework intended to identify firms whose value derives primarily from accumulating assets rather than from ongoing revenue-generating operations.

Under the updated process, a company would first be assessed for the presence of substantial operating assets. Those that do not meet the threshold would then face five additional financial tests to determine continued eligibility for the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes. MSCI’s own simulation using May 2026 data indicated that Strategy, Japan-based Metaplanet, and UK uranium investment firm Yellow Cake would be removed. Three other companies, including Ethereum treasury firm SharpLink, would be placed on a watchlist.

Questions Over Methodology and Continuity

In its paper titled Wall Street’s Invisible Committee, the Bitcoin Policy Institute pointed to metadata associated with the consultation presentation. The materials appeared to have been stored in an internal folder designated for digital asset treasury companies. The institute stated that this finding warrants asking whether the broader language of the new proposal carried forward elements of the earlier, more targeted effort.

A central point of contention is the concept of operating assets. The institute noted that the term is not a standardized balance-sheet category under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or International Financial Reporting Standards. This absence, according to the paper, could afford significant discretion in classifying items such as cash, investments, construction projects, and strategic holdings.

The analysis further suggested that the approach might reach beyond digital asset holders. Capital-intensive businesses, including mining operations or satellite networks, often maintain large asset bases and rely on external financing for extended periods before generating substantial revenue. Unclear criteria could therefore affect a wider range of companies.

Market Implications of Potential Exclusions

Index membership carries substantial weight because large volumes of capital track the benchmarks. Roughly 54 percent of U.S. long-term fund assets follow indexes from three providers, with about $21 trillion benchmarked to MSCI indexes alone. Removal of a constituent typically requires funds that track the index to sell the shares, creating potential selling pressure independent of company fundamentals.

In 2025, JPMorgan analysts estimated that Strategy could face approximately $2.8 billion in outflows under an earlier exclusion scenario. Strategy has described the current proposal as misguided and a pretext for targeting digital asset treasury companies. The firm also noted that MSCI Global Investable Market Index-linked funds hold only about 3.1 percent of its shares, limiting the direct impact in its view.

Calls for Greater Oversight

The Bitcoin Policy Institute argued that private index providers exercise considerable influence over capital allocation while operating with limited regulatory oversight as investment advisers. It referenced prior congressional examinations of MSCI decisions involving Chinese companies as a precedent for scrutiny.

The institute recommended a presumption of inclusion for lawful, liquid, and investable equities in broad-market benchmarks, with any values-based screens confined to clearly labeled optional indexes. It also called on MSCI to publish clearer and reproducible criteria so that market participants can anticipate eligibility outcomes.

MSCI has previously stated that its indexes represent mathematical calculations and do not express opinions on the merits of individual companies or strategies. The firm has not publicly responded to the specific points raised in the recent paper regarding metadata or the definition of operating assets. Results of the consultation are expected in the coming days.