Strive Asset Management has formally expressed its opposition to a recent proposal from MSCI, which suggested the removal of firms with bitcoin holdings exceeding 50% of total assets from principal equity benchmarks.

In correspondence addressed to MSCI CEO Henry Fernandez, Strive articulated concerns that the proposed plan could yield inconsistent results across global markets. The differing accounting treatments for bitcoin holdings under U.S. GAAP and IFRS standards might lead to disparities for companies with comparable exposure.

The Nasdaq-listed firm suggested that MSCI consider employing optional “ex-digital-asset treasury” index variants, rather than redefining eligibility criteria for broad benchmarks. Such customized indices are already in use for sectors including energy and tobacco.

Strive ranks as the 14th-largest public corporate holder of bitcoin, with over 7,500 BTC in its inventory. The firm’s leadership contended that the proposal would “depart from index neutrality” and urged MSCI to “allow the market to determine” the treatment of bitcoin-heavy enterprises.

Founded in 2022 by Vivek Ramaswamy and Anson Frericks, Strive aims to “depoliticize corporate America.”

Implications of MSCI’s Proposal on Companies like Strive and Strategy

The potential rule change may significantly impact major players such as Strategy, which holds 650,000 BTC. JPMorgan estimates that MSCI’s exclusion could result in $2.8 billion in passive outflows from Strategy alone; should other index providers adopt similar measures, the total outflow could escalate to $8.8 billion.

Strive’s letter criticized the 50% threshold as “unjustified, overly broad, and impractical.” The firm pointed out that many companies holding bitcoin as treasury actively operate legitimate businesses.

Examples include AI data centers, structured finance, and cloud infrastructure. Mining companies such as MARA, Riot, Hut 8, and CleanSpark are adapting by renting out excess power and computational capacity.

The firm drew parallels with other sectors, noting that indices do not exclude energy enterprises with substantial oil reserves or gold mining companies reliant on precious metals. Strive argued that imposing a bitcoin-specific rule unjustifiably introduces an investment bias into benchmarks that are intended to remain neutral.

Executives also emphasized the effects of market volatility and varying accounting practices. Fluctuations in bitcoin’s price could lead to companies alternately qualifying or disqualifying from eligibility with each quarter. Furthermore, derivatives and structured products complicate the assessment of exposure.

Strive cautioned that stringent regulations might drive innovation to other jurisdictions. U.S. markets could face disadvantages, while international firms might benefit from more favorable IFRS accounting treatment. The firm contended that the proposal could hinder the development of new bitcoin-backed financial products.

MSCI is expected to announce its decision on January 15, 2026, prior to the February index review. Strive is among several entities mobilizing against the proposal, advocating for fairness, neutrality, and market choice rather than limiting investor access.

Recently, Michael Saylor of Strategy publicly addressed concerns regarding MSCI’s index decisions, clarifying that Strategy operates as a publicly traded company with a $500 million software business and a treasury strategy that utilizes Bitcoin, distinguishing itself from a fund, trust, or holding company.

Source link