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

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2025-12-19Востаннє оновлено о 2025-12-19

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit31 хв тому

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit31 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit51 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbit51 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbit59 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbit59 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片