A false alarm? MSCI temporarily delays removing DAT, but the game is still ongoing

Article by: KarenZ, Foresight News

On January 6, the index provider MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) issued an announcement that brought a glimmer of hope to the beleaguered digital asset treasury companies (DAT): in the upcoming index review in February 2026, MSCI decided to temporarily suspend the proposal to remove them from the Global Investable Market Index (GIMI).

This means that companies flagged for holding large amounts of digital assets like Bitcoin, which were on the watchlist, will retain their positions in MSCI indices for now.

However, MSCI also announced a series of restrictions and plans to initiate broader consultations targeting all “non-operational companies” to thoroughly review how non-operational entities are handled within the index. MSCI defines “non-operational companies” as those holding digital assets and other non-operational assets as core operational components (rather than for investment purposes).

This decision reflects the cautiousness and compromise of traditional financial systems in accepting digital assets. It is not merely a “compromise,” but a rational choice recognizing the complexity of the issue.

Fourfold Paradox and the Withdrawal of Stance

Tracing the origin of this debate, MSCI proposed in October 2025 to exclude companies with digital asset holdings exceeding 50% of total assets from its global investable market index. The core logic seemed reasonable—upholding the index’s role in reflecting the performance of operational companies and excluding DATCOs whose attributes resemble investment funds. However, in practice, it fell into a fourfold paradox.

Standard arbitrariness. Strategy sharply questioned MSCI in a public letter, pointing out that oil giants, REITs, and other companies also hold highly concentrated single-asset classes but are not subject to special restrictions. Targeting only digital asset companies appears to be a double standard.

Implementation infeasibility. The volatile prices of digital assets could cause companies to repeatedly enter and exit the index due to asset value fluctuations. Coupled with differences in accounting standards, this could lead to market chaos and unfair treatment.

Overreach of stance. As an index provider, MSCI should remain neutral, but this proposal essentially constitutes a subjective denial of the value of digital assets.

Contradiction with US digital asset strategy.

MSCI’s shift in stance is fundamentally a result of corporate resistance, market realities, and industry trends forcing a response. Companies like Strategy and other DAT firms are not passively accepting the ruling; instead, they actively issued public letters or joint initiatives urging MSCI to withdraw the proposal. This form of protest pinpointed flaws in the proposal and made MSCI realize that simple exclusion cannot address the reality of digital assets increasingly integrating into corporate balance sheets.

Additionally, MSCI’s plan to conduct broader reviews of “non-operational companies” touches on the core dilemma of modern corporate classification: in the digital economy era, many business models blur these boundaries.

What restrictions are proposed?

A key detail often overlooked 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).”

Furthermore, MSCI will temporarily suspend all “size segment migrations” for these companies. This means that even if their market cap reaches large-cap standards, they will remain in their current segment. Also, no new such companies will be added to the index for now.

It’s clear that MSCI remains cautious. By “freezing weight increases” and “pausing size migrations,” MSCI effectively limits these companies’ influence in the index and buys time to develop a comprehensive set of rules that can cover all “quasi-investment” companies.

What is the potential impact?

In the short term, liquidity crises for stocks like MicroStrategy are temporarily alleviated, reducing the risk of large-scale passive fund withdrawals.

But in the long term, this is not a permanent exemption. MSCI has explicitly stated that broader consultations will be conducted, and new standards based on financial statements will be studied. This indicates that a more rigorous and systematic screening framework is being developed.

From the industry’s long-term perspective, this event marks a deepening integration of digital assets into the traditional financial system. As digital assets become more common on corporate balance sheets, index providers face not the question of “whether to include,” but “how to classify” these assets scientifically. MSCI’s exploration may further promote the establishment of unified standards among index providers.

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

In this process, thorough market consultation and transparent rule disclosure are crucial. How to quantify and evaluate the substantive operational value of digital asset-related companies, and how to balance financial innovation and risk control, will be key to truly integrating digital assets into the traditional financial system and achieving win-win outcomes for all parties.