Strategy: What does the open letter say
Original title:Strategy hard-core MSCI: DAT's final defense
By KarenZ, Foresight News
THE GAME ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DIGITAL ASSET BANK (DAT) INDUSTRY IS CONTINUING。
In October, the global indexing firm MSCI threw out a proposal to exclude companies with 50 per cent or more of their total asset holdings from its global investible market index. This initiative directly threatens the market position of the digital asset bank, represented by Strategy, and may even recast the capital flow of the entire digital asset bank。
According to Bitcoin for Corporations,39 companies may be excluded from the MSCI Global Investmentable Market Index. Morgan Chase Analyst had previously warned that the exclusion of Strategy alone could result in an outflow of almost $2.8 billion in passive funds, or up to $8.8 billion if other index providers followed suit。
AT PRESENT, MSCI ' S CONSULTATION PERIOD ON THIS PROPOSAL WILL CONTINUE UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 2025, AND THE FINAL CONCLUSIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE PUBLISHED BY 15 JANUARY 2026 OR, IF ADJUSTED, WILL BE FORMALLY IMPLEMENTED IN FEBRUARY 2026。
Faced with this urgent situation, Strategy submitted a hard-worded open letter of 12 pages to the MSCI Stock Index Committee on 10 December, which was signed jointly by the Executive Chairman and founder of the company, Michael Saylor, and the CEO and CEO, CEO Phong Le, clearly expressing their strong opposition to the proposal. The letter states: “This proposal is highly misleading and will have far-reaching and devastating consequences for global investor interests and the development of the digital asset sector, and we urge MSCI to completely reverse the plan. I don't know
Strategy's four core defences
Digital assets are revolutionary basic technologies for reshaping the financial system
Strategy argued that the MSCI proposal underestimated the strategic value of Bitcoin and other digital assets. Since the introduction of Bitcoin 16 years ago, this number of assets has gradually grown into a key component of the global economy, with a total current market value of about $185 trillion。
In Strategy, it seems that digital assets are by no means a simple financial instrument, but rather a fundamental technological innovation sufficient to reshape the global financial system• Enterprises that invest in bitcoin-related infrastructure are building a whole new financial ecology, which is no different from the leading firms that have historically developed a single emerging technology。
As in the 19th century standard oil deep-drop oil well mining, the 20th century AT& and T's full efforts to build a telephone network, these enterprises, with forward-looking investments in core infrastructure, have laid a solid foundation for a subsequent economic transformation, eventually becoming industry poles. Strategy believes that companies that focus today on digital assets are repeating this "technology builder" path and should not simply be rejected by traditional index rules。
DAT IS A BUSINESS, NOT A PASSIVE FUND
This is the core of Strategy's defense..DIGITAL ASSET TREASURY (DAT) IS AN OPERATING BUSINESS WITH A FULL BUSINESS MODEL, NOT AN INVESTMENT FUND THAT ONLY PASSIVELY HOLDS BITCOINI don't know. Although Strategy currently holds more than 600,000 bitcoin, its core value does not depend on price fluctuations in bitcoin, but rather creates sustainable returns for shareholders through the design and introduction of unique "digital credit" tools。
Specifically, Strategy's "digital credit" tools cover a variety of types, such as fixed dividends, floating dividends, different levels of priority and priority shares of credit protection provisions, and are then used to raise funds through the sale of these instruments for the purpose of increasing the holding of bitcoin. As long as the returns on the long-term investment of bitcoin exceed Strategy ' s cost of financing in United States dollars, it can bring stable returns to shareholders and customers. Strategy emphasizes that this "active operation + asset value added" model is fundamentally different from the passive management logic of traditional investment funds or ETFs and should be regarded as normal business enterprises。
At the same time, Strategy also questions in his letter why oil giants, real estate investment trusts, timber enterprises, etc., can centrally hold a single class of assets without being classified as investment funds and excluded from the indexThe imposition of special restrictions only on digital asset companies is clearly inconsistent with industry equity。
The digital asset threshold is arbitrary, discriminatory and unrealistic
Strategy stated that the MSCI proposal applied discriminatory criteria. Many large companies in traditional industries also have a high concentration of single asset classes in their assets, including oil and gas companies, real estate investment trust funds, timber companies and power infrastructure enterprises. However, MSCI had established special exclusion criteria only for digital asset companies, which constituted a clear injustice。
THE PROPOSAL ALSO POSED SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF THE FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION. OWING TO THE VOLATILITY OF THE PRICE OF DIGITAL ASSETS, THE SAME COMPANY MAY ENTER AND EXIT THE MSCI INDEX REPEATEDLY OVER SEVERAL DAYS DUE TO CHANGES IN ASSET VALUES, CAUSING MARKET DISRUPTION. IN ADDITION, DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS (THE UNITED STATES GAAP AND THE INTERNATIONAL IFRS STANDARDS TREAT DIGITAL ASSETS DIFFERENTLY) WILL RESULT IN DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF COMPANIES WITH THE SAME BUSINESS MODEL DEPENDING ON THEIR PLACE OF INCORPORATION。
Injection policy bias, contrary to the principle of index neutrality
Strategy argues that the MSCI proposal is essentially a value judgement for certain types of asset, and that the MSI proposal is not an assetContrary to the fundamental principle that index providers should remain neutralI DON'T KNOW. MSCI CLAIMS TO MARKET AND REGULATORY BODIES THAT ITS INDEX PROVIDES “EXHAUSTIBLE” COVERAGE, WHICH IS INTENDED TO REFLECT “THE EVOLUTION OF THE BOTTOM STOCK MARKET” AND SHOULD NOT JUDGE THE “GOODNESS OR APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY MARKET, COMPANY, STRATEGY OR INVESTMENT”。
BY SELECTIVELY EXCLUDING DIGITAL ASSET, MSCI IS ACTUALLY MAKING POLICY JUDGEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE MARKET, WHICH SHOULD BE AVOIDED BY INDEX PROVIDERS。
It's against the U.S. digital asset strategy
Strategy stressed in particular that the proposal conflicted with the Trump government ' s strategic goal of advancing digital asset leadershipI don't know. In the first week of its tenure, the Trump Government signed an executive decree to promote the growth of digital finance technology and established a strategic Bitcoin reserve aimed at making the United States a global leader in digital assets。
But the fall of MSCI’s proposal would directly prevent long-term capital investment in digital asset companies, such as US pensions, the 401 (k) scheme, and result in billions of dollars of capital flowing out of the industry, which would not only impede the development of US digital asset innovation enterprises, but could also weaken America’s competitiveness in this strategic area, contrary to the stated policy direction of the government。
Strategy quotes the analyst's estimate that the Strategy family alone may face passive settlement of shares amounting to $2.8 billion as a result of the MSCI proposalI don't know. This will not only harm Strategy itself, but will also have a chilling effect on the entire digital asset ecosystem, such as the possibility of forcing Bitcoin mining companies to sell assets ahead of schedule to restructure assets, thus distorting the normal supply-demand relationship in the digital asset market。
Strategy's final claim
In an open letter, Strategy makes two main claims:
ONE IS THE HOPE THAT MSCI WILL WITHDRAW THE WITHDRAWAL(B) TO ALLOW THE MARKET TO TEST THE VALUE OF THE DIGITAL ASSET BANK (DAT) THROUGH FREE COMPETITION, SO THAT THE INDEX WILL REFLECT THE NEXT GENERATION OF FINANCIAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN A NEUTRAL AND FAITHFUL MANNER
SECOND, IF MSCI CONTINUES TO INSIST ON "SPECIAL TREATMENT" FOR DIGITAL ASSET COMPANIES, IT WILL NEED TO EXPAND THE SCOPE AND DURATION OF INDUSTRY CONSULTATIONSand provide fuller logical support to explain the legitimacy of the rule。
Strategy is not alone
Strategy is not alone. According to BitcoinTreasurys.NET data, as of December 11Worldwide, 208 listed companies hold over 1.07 million bitcoins, over 5 per cent of the total supply of bitcoin, with a current value of about $100 billionI don't know。
Source: BitcoinTreasurys.NET
These figures represent an important bridge between institutions using encrypted currency and provide indirect access to traditional financial institutions such as pension funds and endowments。
Previously, a listed company with Bitcoin recommended that MSCI return the "opportunity" to the market. A simple and straightforward solution:Creates the "Data Asset Treasury" version of the existing indexFor example, the MSCIA ex Digital Assembly Treasures Index and the MSCI ACWI ex Digital Assembly Treasures Index allow investors to choose tracking benchmarks autonomously through transparent screening mechanisms that preserve the integrity of the index and meet the needs of different investors。
In addition, industry organizations, Bitcoin for Corporations, have launched a joint initiative calling on MSCI to withdraw the digital asset proposal, arguing that classification should be based on the actual business model of the company, financial performance and operational characteristics, rather than simply the asset ratio. According to the network of officialsSo far 309 companies or investors have signed a joint letterIn addition to Strategy, the signatories included the top of well-known enterprises in the industries of Strive, Bitgo, Redwood Digital Group, 21MIL, Btc Inc, DeFi Development Corp, and numerous individual developers and investors。
Summary
The confrontation between Strategy and MSCI is essentially a fundamental debate about how emerging financial innovation can be integrated into traditional systems. The Digital Asset Bank (DAT), as a "cross-border" in the traditional financial and encrypted currency world, is neither a purely technological enterprise, nor a simple investment fund, but an entirely new business model built on digital assets。
The MSCI proposal seeks to use the 50 per cent asset ratio criterion to classify these complex entities as “investment funds” and exclude them from the index, while Strategy insists that this simplification is a serious misunderstanding of their business nature and a departure from the principle of index neutrality. As the decision-making date of January 15, 2026 approaches, the outcome of this game will not only determine how many bitcoins hold the index of “accessibility” to listed companies, but will also define the critical “living boundary” of the digital asset industry’s future status in the global traditional financial system。
References
<1>https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltf8d8d8d8d8d9cebd37/blt26a263f232a531c/693976b64c2a19111/strategy-msci-letter.pdf
<2>https://app2.msci.com/webapp/index_ann/DocGet?pub_key=0bZz7Im3vZU%3D&lang=en&format=html
<3>https://x.com/ColeMacro/status/1996930014441623902
RECOMMENDED READING:
The biggest bitcoin bank in Asia, Metaplanet
