Crypto Treasury Firms Face $15B Selling Pressure From MSCI Decision

bitcoinistPublished on 2025-12-19Last updated on 2025-12-19

Abstract

Analysts estimate that passive funds could pull between $10 billion and $15 billion from companies holding significant crypto assets if MSCI proceeds with a proposed rule change. The index provider is reviewing a policy to exclude firms holding over 50% of their assets in digital currencies from its benchmarks, a decision expected by January 2026. If enacted, index-tracking funds would be forced to sell shares of affected companies. JPMorgan analysis singles out MicroStrategy as the most impacted, potentially facing $2.8 billion in outflows. Beyond stock sales, there is a risk the companies themselves might liquidate crypto holdings, adding direct selling pressure to both equity and crypto markets. Industry groups are pushing back against the proposal, arguing for an operations-based classification instead.

Analysts have calculated that passive funds could pull as much as $11.6 billion from companies that treat large crypto holdings as corporate treasuries if MSCI removes them from its indexes, a move that would force index-tracking vehicles to sell shares.

Reports say that number comes from adding direct MSCI-tracked outflows to possible follow-on selling by other index providers.

Estimated Outflows Range

The figure sits inside a wider band of estimates. Some analysts and press pieces put the possible damage anywhere between $10 billion and $15 billion, depending on whether other major index providers copy MSCI’s decision and how much passive money is forced to move.

The analysis that produced these numbers looked at roughly 39 listed companies that meet MSCI’s proposed definition of a digital-asset treasury firm.

BTCUSD now trading at $87,105. Chart: TradingView

MSCI’s Proposal And The Mechanics

According to MSCI’s own consultation documents, the index provider is reviewing a rule that would treat companies holding more than 50% of their assets in digital assets as non-constituents of its broad equity indexes.

MSCI extended the consultation through December and said it expects to announce conclusions by January 15, 2026, with any changes applied in the February 2026 index review. If a firm is removed, funds that track MSCI benchmarks typically must reduce or sell their stakes automatically.

Strategy Stands Out

JPMorgan’s work has been singled out in multiple reports. According to that note, Strategy alone could face about $2.8 billion in passive outflows if removed from MSCI indexes, and larger losses if other index families follow.

Analysts say Strategy’s unique position — with a very high share of its balance sheet in Bitcoin — makes it the single biggest driver of the total outflow math.

Risk To Crypto Holdings

Some sectors warn that, beyond stock selling, the companies themselves might liquidate crypto positions to meet margin or liquidity needs, which could push crypto asset sales toward a figure as high as $15 billion in the worst scenarios. That would add direct selling pressure to both the equities and crypto markets.

Source: Bitcoin for Corporations

Industry Pushback

Based on reports, a group named Bitcoin For Corporations, along with several affected firms, pushed back, saying the MSCI test relies on a single balance-sheet threshold that doesn’t reflect how these companies actually operate.

The campaign has drawn public comments and petitions; several reports put the signature count at about 1,200 to 1,300. Companies have filed feedback with MSCI and have argued for an operations-based classification instead of a holdings-based cut-off.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Related Questions

QWhat is the estimated amount of selling pressure that crypto treasury firms could face due to MSCI's proposed rule change?

AAnalysts estimate that crypto treasury firms could face selling pressure ranging from $10 billion to $15 billion.

QWhat is the specific threshold in MSCI's proposal that would cause a company to be excluded from its indexes?

AMSCI's proposal would treat companies holding more than 50% of their assets in digital assets as non-constituents of its broad equity indexes.

QWhich company is singled out as the single biggest driver of the total outflow math and why?

AMicroStrategy is singled out as the biggest driver due to its unique position with a very high share of its balance sheet in Bitcoin, potentially facing about $2.8 billion in passive outflows.

QBeyond stock selling, what additional risk to the crypto market is highlighted in the article?

AThe article warns that the companies themselves might be forced to liquidate their crypto positions to meet margin or liquidity needs, which could add direct selling pressure to the crypto market.

QWhat is the main argument made by the industry group 'Bitcoin For Corporations' against MSCI's proposal?

AThe group argues that the MSCI test relies on a single balance-sheet threshold that doesn't reflect how these companies actually operate, and they have advocated for an operations-based classification instead.

Related Reads

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

Title: As Consensus Forms Faster, What Are Young Investors Betting On? In the rapid evolution of tech investment, a new generation of young investors is navigating a landscape where AI, robotics, commercial aerospace, and quantum computing are advancing simultaneously. Traditional investment logic based on financial models is giving way to a need for deep technical understanding and the ability to act before industry consensus forms. An analysis of trends from the "WAIC FUTURE TECH" list of young investment leaders reveals key shifts in focus. The first major trend is the movement of AI from the digital screen into the physical world. Investment is shifting from large language models and chatbots towards embodied AI, robotics, AI hardware, and edge computing. While demonstrations generate excitement, the real challenge lies in achieving scalable, reliable, and cost-effective delivery in complex real-world environments like factories and logistics. Success depends not just on algorithms but on the integration of sensors, actuators, and control systems. Second, the competitive focus for large models is moving beyond raw capability toward building an "intelligence flywheel." The goal is to create self-reinforcing systems where user interaction generates data, improving the model, which in turn enhances the user experience and attracts more engagement. Companies that successfully embed AI into workflows to create these closed-loop systems can build lasting value that isn't easily erased by the next model upgrade. Third, facing a potential bottleneck in high-quality human-generated data, investors are looking at new underlying technologies. Reinforcement learning and self-play, as demonstrated by AlphaGo Zero, offer paths for AI to generate its own experience. Scientific foundation models, which aim to build general AI capabilities for fields like life sciences and materials discovery, represent a non-consensus direction that could unlock new frontiers of knowledge and data. Finally, in deep-tech areas like quantum computing, commercial aerospace, and space-based infrastructure, patient capital is essential. These fields have long, uncertain development and validation cycles involving complex engineering, supply chains, and regulations. Investment here requires a long-term view, focusing on foundational team capabilities and the eventual emergence of market demand, even if commercial returns are distant. Collectively, these trends illustrate how young investors are adapting to a new era. They are learning to make earlier, technically-informed judgments, balance hype with real-world viability, and provide the patient capital needed to build the deep-tech foundations of the future.

marsbit27m ago

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

marsbit27m ago

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

Japan's cabinet has introduced the 2026 Basic Policy on Economic and Fiscal Management and Reform, shifting its primary fiscal target. The new framework moves away from the traditional annual primary balance goal and instead prioritizes a stable reduction of the debt-to-GDP ratio. This change is tied to a strategy of increased "responsible proactive fiscal" spending, aiming to boost long-term growth through investments in strategic sectors like AI, semiconductors, energy, and robotics. The government estimates total public and private investment in 62 key technologies could exceed 370 trillion yen by 2040. The market reaction has been mixed and cautious. While equity markets may respond to policy signals, bond markets are focused on fiscal credibility. Concerns center on whether the weakening of the clear primary balance anchor could lead to looser fiscal discipline. If investors doubt that these strategic investments will generate sufficient productivity gains, tax revenue, and nominal growth to outpace rising interest costs, they may demand higher yields on Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs). Recent volatility in the yen and JGB yields, with the 10-year yield briefly reaching 2.9%, reflects this skepticism. The success of this new framework hinges on two factors: whether Japan can achieve a nominal growth rate consistently higher than its long-term interest rates, and whether future budgets demonstrate disciplined control over bond issuance. The government's narrative is that strategic investment is essential to break Japan's cycle of low growth, aging, and labor shortages. However, the bond market will continuously assess the credibility of this plan, pricing the risk that it may represent fiscal expansion rather than a viable growth strategy.

marsbit1h ago

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

marsbit1h ago

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit1h ago

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片