The Future of Bitcoin-Linked Corporate Models: Can Strategy Survive Index Scrutiny?

The integration of Bitcoin into corporate balance sheets has sparked a seismic shift in how traditional financial indices classify and value companies. As institutional investors increasingly treat digital assets as core portfolio components, the debate over index classification criteria has intensified. At the heart of this controversy lies a critical question: Can companies like MicroStrategy (MSTR) and others with significant Bitcoin holdings retain their place in major indices amid evolving standards?

The recent proposals by MSCI to exclude such firms-and the contrasting approach of S&P Global-highlight the fragility and potential volatility of this nascent asset class.

MSCI's Proposed Exclusion: A Structural Rejection or Prudent Risk Management?

MSCI's consultation on excluding companies where Bitcoin or other digital assets constitute 50% or more of total assets has drawn sharp criticism from industry stakeholders. According to a report by , the Bitcoin Coalition and Strategy, a prominent Bitcoin treasury firm, argue that the proposal violates long-standing index principles by prioritizing balance sheet composition over operational activity. They draw parallels to traditional asset classes: oil companies holding oil reserves or REITs owning real estate are not reclassified as investment vehicles.

Critics further contend that MSCI's rule introduces structural bias against a single asset class. notes, this could amplify index volatility tied to Bitcoin's price swings, triggering forced turnover and higher trading costs for funds tracking the index. For companies like Strategy, which holds Bitcoin as a core asset, the exclusion could result in billions in stock outflows if removed from major benchmarks. The consultation period closed on December 31, 2025, with final decisions expected by January 15, 2026. If implemented, the rule would take effect in February 2026, reshaping the landscape for Bitcoin-linked firms.

S&P's Hybrid Approach: Bridging Traditional and Digital Markets

While MSCI's stance signals caution, S&P Global has taken a divergent path. In October 2025, the firm launched the S&P Digital Markets 50 Index, a hybrid benchmark combining 35 publicly traded companies involved in crypto infrastructure, blockchain applications, and financial services with 15 cryptocurrencies selected from its existing Broad Digital Market Index. This index, designed to offer diversified exposure, to both the firms building the digital asset ecosystem and the tokens driving it, reflects a broader institutional embrace of Bitcoin as a legitimate asset class.

Notably, S&P has partnered with Dinari, a blockchain platform, to tokenize the index as a dShare, enabling on-chain tracking. This innovation underscores the growing institutionalization of digital assets and suggests that indices may evolve to accommodate Bitcoin-linked models rather than exclude them. Meanwhile, the Nasdaq 100 has reaffirmed MicroStrategy's inclusion, signaling that not all indices are aligning with MSCI's proposed exclusion.

Cascading Market Impacts: Liquidity, Valuation, and Investor Sentiment

The stakes for Bitcoin-linked companies are high. If MSCI's proposal is enacted, affected firms could face immediate liquidity pressures as index-tracking funds divest holdings. estimates that such outflows could destabilize smaller firms disproportionately, given their lower trading volumes. Moreover, the exclusion could send a negative signal to investors, reinforcing perceptions of Bitcoin as a speculative or volatile asset rather than a strategic reserve.

Conversely, S&P's hybrid index may attract a new cohort of investors seeking exposure to both crypto infrastructure and tokens, potentially offsetting some of the losses from MSCI's exclusion. This bifurcation in index strategies highlights a broader tension: traditional indices are either adapting to digital assets or retreating from them, creating fragmented market signals.

The Path Forward: Resilience or Reconfiguration?

For companies like Strategy, the survival of their business model hinges on their ability to navigate these shifting index dynamics. If MSCI's exclusion is implemented, they may need to diversify their asset allocations or pivot toward operational revenue streams to retain index inclusion. Alternatively, they could leverage S&P's hybrid index to attract investors seeking exposure to Bitcoin-linked innovation.

The outcome of MSCI's consultation will also set a precedent for other indices. observes, the debate is not just about classification criteria but about the broader role of digital assets in global finance. If indices continue to treat Bitcoin as a speculative outlier, the asset's institutional adoption may stall. However, if they integrate it into mainstream benchmarks-as S&P has done-the path to normalization could accelerate.

Conclusion

The future of Bitcoin-linked corporate models remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: index classification criteria will play a pivotal role in shaping their trajectory. MSCI's proposed exclusion represents a significant risk, while S&P's hybrid index offers a glimpse of a more inclusive future. For companies like Strategy, the challenge will be to adapt to these evolving standards while demonstrating the long-term value of Bitcoin as a corporate treasury asset. As the financial world grapples with this transition, the coming months will test whether innovation can coexist with tradition-or if the two remain fundamentally at odds.