Strategy warns MSCI’s rule change could cause index instability and force funds to sell shares, impacting U.S. digital asset competitiveness.
Michael Saylor’s firm, Strategy, has managed to retain its position in the Nasdaq 100 despite concerns over its Bitcoin-centered business model.
The firm’s inclusion continues to draw attention as the company navigates its unconventional strategy. In the meantime, the firm is waiting for a decision from MSCI in January that could affect its place in global indexes.
Strategy Retains Nasdaq 100 Position Despite Scrutiny
Strategy has successfully kept its spot in the Nasdaq 100 following the latest index rebalancing. This is significant as the firm has faced scrutiny over its shift from enterprise software development to Bitcoin accumulation. The company’s stock price now closely tracks Bitcoin’s movements, raising concerns about whether it still fits within the traditional tech sector.
🚨 BREAKING 🚨
🇺🇸 STRATEGY REMAINS IN THE NASDAQ 100 INDEX ACCORDING TO REUTERS#NASDAQ100 #Stocks #Crypto #MarketNews #USStrategy pic.twitter.com/jjcOc7TBat
— Crypto News Hunters 🎯 (@CryptoNewsHntrs) December 13, 2025
However, despite these concerns, Strategy has managed to stay in the Nasdaq 100. The rebalancing saw several companies, such as Biogen and CDW Corporation, removed from the index.
Strategy’s inclusion last December marked its entry as a tech company, but it now operates under a different business model, one more aligned with cryptocurrency than traditional technology.
The Nasdaq 100 tracks the performance of the top non-financial companies. While some analysts question whether Strategy still meets the criteria, it remains listed for now. The firm’s focus on Bitcoin accumulation has been a central point of debate, particularly as the company’s performance becomes more closely tied to Bitcoin’s price.
MSCI Review Looms Over Strategy’s Global Index Standing
While Strategy has secured its place on the Nasdaq 100, its position in global indexes is still uncertain.
MSCI, a major index provider, is reviewing whether firms with digital asset treasuries should remain on its Global Investable Market Indexes. The outcome of this review, expected in January, could have important consequences for Strategy’s future inclusion.
MSCI’s decision could lead to Strategy and similar companies being removed from its indexes. This would likely trigger large outflows from passive funds that track MSCI’s indexes.
Strategy warns that MSCI’s rule change could lead to chaotic index fluctuations due to Bitcoin’s volatility, forcing funds to sell shares and jeopardizing U.S. digital asset competitiveness.
NEW: Strategy warns MSCI’s rule change could spark chaotic index churn as bitcoin swings and force funds to dump shares, threatening U.S. digital-asset competitivenesshttps://t.co/lsyD5FMaif
— Bitcoin News (@BitcoinNewsCom) December 12, 2025
Strategy has formally opposed MSCI’s proposal, arguing that it could harm investors. The company has pointed out that digital asset-focused businesses offer unique value and should be considered within existing index frameworks.
Despite a significant decline in its stock price, Strategy is determined to challenge MSCI’s decision.
Related Reading: Michael Saylor Buys 487 Bitcoin as Crypto Market Shows Rebound
The Growing Debate on Digital Asset Treasuries
The debate over the inclusion of digital asset treasury companies in global indexes is intensifying.
Firms like Bitwise have argued in favor of including companies with Bitcoin-focused business models. They believe that excluding these companies introduces subjectivity into MSCI’s otherwise rule-based indexing process.
As MSCI moves toward a decision, the debate highlights the difficulties in categorizing new business models. Digital asset treasuries are becoming more influential, but their place within traditional financial indexes remains uncertain.
Some investors see value in these firms, while others worry about the risks associated with their focus on volatile assets like Bitcoin.
With the MSCI decision approaching, the future of Strategy and similar firms remains in question. The outcome could set a precedent for how digital asset-based companies are treated by global investment markets.
As the situation develops, all eyes will be on the January decision that could reshape the landscape for crypto-related companies in traditional financial systems.