The Nasdaq 100's Bitcoin Exposure: Is Strategy a Tech Stock or a Crypto Fund?

The Nasdaq 100, a bellwether for global technology markets, has become an unlikely battleground for a pivotal debate: Should companies like Strategy Inc. (formerly MicroStrategy), which hold vast Bitcoin reserves, be classified as technology stocks or crypto funds? This question has gained urgency as the index's inclusion of firms with significant Bitcoin exposure-most notably Strategy-sparks regulatory scrutiny, market volatility, and philosophical clashes over the future of corporate treasury strategies.

Strategy's Bitcoin Bet: A New Kind of Tech Company?

Strategy, which rebranded in the 2020 after pivoting to a Bitcoin-first business model, holds approximately 650,000 BTC, valued at over $59.5 billion as of November 2025. Despite its stock price plummeting by over 40% year-to-date, the company retained its spot in the Nasdaq 100 during the December 2025 reconstitution according to reports. This decision has drawn sharp criticism from analysts who argue that Strategy's equity performance is now inextricably tied to Bitcoin's price swings, diverging from the traditional metrics used to evaluate tech firms according to market analysis.

Proponents of Strategy's inclusion, however, contend that the company remains a "Bitcoin operating company" rather than a passive investment vehicle. CEO Michael Saylor has emphasized that Bitcoin is not a speculative asset but a strategic reserve asset, akin to gold or real estate, and that the firm's core operations-software development and enterprise solutions-still generate revenue according to company statements. This argument hinges on the premise that Bitcoin holdings are a capital allocation decision, not a redefinition of the company's primary business.

The MSCI Conundrum: A 50% Threshold for Exclusion?

The debate has escalated as MSCI, a major global index provider, evaluates whether to exclude companies with over 50% of their total assets in digital currencies from its benchmarks. This proposed rule would reclassify firms like Strategy, Riot Platforms, and Marathon Digital Holdings as "digital asset treasuries," effectively removing them from traditional equity indices. MSCI's rationale is that such companies resemble investment funds rather than operating businesses, given their reliance on crypto price movements for valuation according to index analysts.

Critics of the proposal, including Strategy, argue that the 50% threshold is arbitrary and discriminatory. They point out that no equivalent rule exists for other asset classes, such as real estate or commodities, and that revenue generation-not asset composition-should define a company's classification according to industry experts. Furthermore, opponents warn that forced divestments by index-tracking funds could trigger massive outflows, with estimates ranging from $2.8 billion to $8.8 billion for Strategy alone according to market projections.

Market Implications: Liquidity, Volatility, and Precedent

The potential exclusion of crypto-treasury companies from major indices carries broader implications. If implemented, MSCI's rule could reduce liquidity for firms like Strategy, amplify price volatility, and signal a rejection of Bitcoin as a legitimate corporate asset class by traditional finance according to financial analysts. This outcome would also create a regulatory precedent, pressuring other index providers like S&P and FTSE Russell to adopt similar criteria.

Conversely, retaining Strategy in the Nasdaq 100 could validate Bitcoin's role in corporate treasuries, encouraging further institutional adoption. However, this path risks diluting the index's focus on traditional technology firms, as companies with crypto exposure increasingly dominate its composition. For instance, Tesla (TSLA) and Coinbase (COIN) also hold Bitcoin, though their reserves are smaller and less central to their business models according to public filings.

The Road Ahead: Innovation vs. Tradition

The outcome of MSCI's decision in January 2026 will likely shape the trajectory of corporate Bitcoin adoption. If the rule is rejected, it could embolden companies to expand their crypto holdings, fostering innovation in digital asset management. A reversal, however, might deter firms from treating Bitcoin as a strategic reserve, stifling growth in this sector.

For investors, the key takeaway is the growing tension between evolving financial strategies and traditional index methodologies. As Bitcoin's role in corporate treasuries expands, the debate over classification will remain a critical factor in assessing the long-term viability of crypto-treasury companies-and their place in the broader market.