NEW FINDINGS: We took a close look at MSCIโs effort to exclude Bitcoin treasury companies from major stock indexes.
We found an internal project trail buried in a public document, years of ESG advocacy, and proposed rules that could reach far beyond Bitcoin.
Our new paper, โWall Streetโs Invisible Committee,โ documents what we uncovered and provides recommendations for policymakers.
MSCI reports an astonishing $21 trillion benchmarked to its indexes. When its committees change which companies qualify, funds tracking those indexes must adjust their holdings. A methodology decision can trigger billions in reallocation.
Hereโs what we found.
๐ญ. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฎ๐น ๐๐๐ถ๐น๐น ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ท๐ฒ๐ฐ๐โ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ป๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ.
In 2025, MSCI proposed excluding Digital Asset Treasury Companies (DATCOs) holding at least half their assets in digital assets. After substantial opposition, it shelved the proposal.
It later returned this year with a broader, facially neutral test for โnon-operating companies.โ MSCIโs own simulation would exclude Strategy and Metaplanet.
We examined the public consultation PDF and found something revealing in its embedded metadata.
The source presentationโs internal file path includesโ
โProjects/DATCOs/Operating vs Non Operatingโ
A proposal presented as a general classification rule retains a source-file path explicitly associated with the category targeted by the earlier exclusion effort.
While metadata alone cannot prove the outcome was predetermined, it raises a direct question for MSCI. Were these criteria developed to classify companies consistently, or engineered to reach the same exclusions against digital asset companies through a broader rule?
๐ฎ. ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐ โ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฝ๐๐ผโ ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฟ.
We traced its public record back to an October 2021 article titled โCreeping Crypto.โ
MSCI publicly warned about cryptocurrency exposure entering equity portfolios, described most cryptocurrencies as โspeculative investments with little evident utility,โ and flagged Bitcoinโs Proof of Work as environmentally dangerous.
They identified 26 exposed public companies and promoted tools for screening additional exposure. Singled out at the very bottom of their ESG rankings... was Strategy.
While the article did not call for exclusions, it does establish that an internal belief at MSCI that Bitcoin and digital asset companies were an ESG concern four years before proposing to remove digital asset treasury companies.
๐ฏ. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐น๐ถ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐๐ป๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐.
CEO Henry Fernandez has repeatedly, publicly proclaimed the urgent importance of ESG investing. In 2021, he recounted urging bankers to โrefuse to take a company public or do a bond offeringโ without a net-zero pledge.
MSCIโs leadership also combined responsibility for ESG and index governance. Its then-head of indexes described an ambition for its flagship global index to become โgreen, one company at a time.โ
These statements do not prove the motive behind todayโs proposal. They make the boundary between MSCIโs advocacy and its broad-market index decisions a serious governance question.
๐ฐ. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎโ๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐
๐ ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐๐๐ฟ๐.
The proposed test relies on โoperating assetsโ without a sufficiently clear, reproducible classification framework.
How should it treat a satellite awaiting launch? A mine under construction? Capital raised to build a factory?
Our analysis shows how plausible interpretations could disadvantage emerging, strategic industries before they have the chance to compete.
Americans buying broad-market funds deserve transparent rules, reproducible decisions, and meaningful accountability from the committees deciding what they own.
Read the full findings and our recommendations below โ
btcpolicy.org/articles/wall-โฆ