Written by: KarenZ, Foresight News
Original title: A False Alarm? MSCI Temporarily Halts Removal of DAT, but the Game Continues
On January 6, a notice from index giant MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) brought a glimmer of hope to the beleaguered Digital Asset Treasury Companies (DAT): in the February 2026 index review, MSCI decided to temporarily suspend the proposal to remove them from the Global Investable Market Index (GIMI).
This means that companies placed on the watchlist due to holding significant amounts of digital assets like Bitcoin have temporarily retained their seats in the MSCI indices.
However, MSCI also announced a series of restrictive measures and plans to initiate broader consultations targeting all "non-operating companies" to comprehensively review the treatment of such companies in the indices. MSCI defines "non-operating companies" as those that hold digital assets and other non-operating assets as a core part of their operations (rather than for investment purposes).
This decision further reflects the caution and compromise of the traditional financial system in embracing digital assets. This is not a simple "compromise" but a rational choice made after recognizing the complexity of the issue.
A Position Retreat Under Four Paradoxes
Tracing back to the origin of this game, in October 2025, MSCI put forward a proposal to exclude companies whose digital asset holdings account for 50% or more of their total assets from its Global Investable Market Index. Its core logic seemed reasonable—adhering to the index's positioning of "reflecting the performance of operating companies" and excluding DATCOs, whose attributes are close to investment funds. However, in practice, it fell into four paradoxes.
-
Arbitrariness of the Standard. Strategy sharply questioned in an open letter to MSCI that oil giants, REITs, and other enterprises also hold highly concentrated single-category assets but are not subject to special restrictions; setting limits only for digital asset companies涉嫌双重标准 (suspected double standards).
-
Infeasibility of Execution. The extreme volatility of digital asset prices could cause companies to repeatedly enter and exit the index due to asset value changes, coupled with differences in accounting standards, which would create market chaos and unfair treatment.
-
Overreach of Stance. As an index provider, MSCI should remain neutral, but this proposal实质上是对数字资产价值的主观否定 (essentially constitutes a subjective denial of the value of digital assets).
-
Contradiction with U.S. Digital Asset Strategy.
MSCI's change in stance is essentially the combined result of strong corporate rebuttals, market reality constraints, and industry trend pressures. DAT companies, represented by Strategy, did not passively accept the ruling but actively issued open letters or joint initiatives calling on MSCI to withdraw the digital asset proposal. This rebuttal precisely targeted the flaws in the proposal and made MSCI realize that simply removing these companies cannot solve the reality of digital assets increasingly integrating into corporate balance sheets.
Furthermore, MSCI's proposal to conduct a broader review of "non-operating companies" actually touches on the core dilemma of modern enterprise classification: in the era of the digital economy, the business models of many companies themselves blur this boundary.
What Are the Restrictive Measures?
A detail in the announcement that is easily overlooked but extremely critical is: MSCI will not implement adjustments based on increases in "Number of Shares (NOS)", "Foreign Inclusion Factor (FIF)", or "Domestic Inclusion Factor (DIF)" for these securities.
Additionally, MSCI will suspend all "size segment migrations" for such companies. This means that even if their market capitalization grows to meet large-cap standards, they can only remain in their current segment. Another point is the temporary halt on admitting new such companies into the indices.
It can be seen that MSCI's attitude remains cautious. By "freezing weight increases" and "suspending size migrations," MSCI effectively limits the further expansion of these companies' influence in the indices, while also buying time to develop a universal set of rules that can cover all "investment-like companies."
What Is the Impact?
In the short term, the liquidity crisis for stocks like MicroStrategy has been temporarily alleviated, eliminating the risk of large-scale withdrawals of passive funds.
However, in the long run, this is not a permanent exemption. MSCI clearly stated that it will conduct broader consultations and research new standards based on financial statements. This意味着一套更严格、更成体系的筛选规则正在酝酿中 (means that a stricter, more systematic screening rule set is in the works).
From the perspective of long-term industry development, this event marks the entry of the integration of digital assets and the traditional financial system into deep waters. As digital assets become increasingly common on corporate balance sheets, index compilers no longer face the multiple-choice question of "whether to include" but the required question of "how to classify scientifically." MSCI's exploration may further prompt index peers to establish unified standards.
The final outcome of this game will reshape the boundaries of corporate asset allocation and the underlying logic of index compilation.
In this process, adequate market consultation and transparent rule disclosure, how to quantitatively assess the substantive operational value of digital asset-related enterprises, and how to balance the inclusiveness of financial innovation with the bottom line of risk prevention and control will be the core prerequisites for truly integrating digital assets into the traditional financial system and achieving a win-win situation for multiple parties.
Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN
Bitpush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity
Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush
