According to Woofun AI, MSCI officially announced the adoption of a new screening framework for “non-operating companies” on October 15, which aims to accurately screen listed companies that are essentially closer to investment instruments than physical enterprises through core financial indicators such as operating assets, operating expenses, and cash flow.
This structural adjustment will be directly embedded in the November index review process. The final list of affected constituent stocks will be announced to the public on November 11, and will officially take effect after closing on November 30, marking a substantial contraction in the inclusiveness of mainstream global index compilation rules for crypto treasury companies.
Looking back at the evolutionary path of the rules, MSCI's attitude towards digital asset treasury companies has gone through a process of aggressive exclusion to careful scrutiny. In 2025, MSCI proposed a highly controversial draft to directly exclude treasury companies with digital assets accounting for 50% or more of total assets from the Global Investable Markets Index (GIMI).
However, in January of this year, MSCI decided not to implement this exclusion plan based on a single position ratio and instead launch a broader research framework for 'non-operating companies'. During this period, although related companies were able to remain in the index, strict temporary restrictions have been imposed, including freezing the number of shares calculated in the index and the increase in inclusion factors, while suspending new inclusions and hierarchical migration of scale.
This means that the “50% share of digital assets” proposed last year is not an automatic deletion red line that has already been implemented, and the implementation of the new framework has completely replaced these temporary restrictions. MSCI no longer makes judgments based on the share of digital assets in isolation, but rather comprehensively examines the company's overall financial structure. Whether it holds cryptographic assets or traditional investment assets, the core logic is to define: if an enterprise exists in the form of an ordinary listed company, but its value growth is mainly due to asset holdings and price fluctuations, and whether it still has index qualifications as an operating enterprise.
The core of the new framework is a strict two-step screening mechanism aimed at quantifying whether the company has real business substance. The first step is 'core screening', which focuses on checking whether the company has sufficient operating assets. According to the MSCI consultation document, if operating assets account for more than 50% of total assets, the company can pass this level; those that fail to meet the standards will enter the second step of in-depth review. The second step revolves around five key financial indicators: first, operating assets, to assess the share of assets actually used to conduct business; second, operating expenses to determine whether there is operating investment that matches the size of assets; third, operating cash flow to observe whether the main business can generate continuous cash inflows; fourth, fair value changes to analyze whether financial performance is mainly driven by fluctuations in the price of assets held; and fifth, external financing to examine whether the company mainly relies on financing rather than endogenous growth to accumulate assets. Companies that fail the core screening will be judged ineligible for inclusion if at least four of the five indicators trigger exclusion conditions.
Notably, MSCI has set up a buffer mechanism to smooth the impact: existing constituent stocks will only be officially removed if they have not passed the screening in the last two annual filing periods; non-constituent stocks will lose their eligibility for new inclusion if they fail any of the last two annual filing periods.
Additionally, MSCI may also refer to the latest interim reporting materials. This mechanism shows that retaining only a small amount of software or hotel business may not be enough to maintain index eligibility, and holding a large amount of cryptographic assets will not automatically trigger deletion. The key is the weight of the business in the overall financial structure of the company and the sustainability of the unqualified state.
According to data compiled by Woofun AI, the list of potential deletions currently disclosed involves a total of 5 companies, 3 of which are crypto treasury companies, namely Strategy (MSTR.US), Metaplanet, which holds Bitcoin, and Upexi (UPXI.US), which mainly focuses on SOL treasury;
The other two are uranium investment company Yellow Cake and Icelandic investment holding company Skel fjárfestingafélag. Meanwhile, the watch list expanded to 17 companies, including digital asset treasury-related companies such as SharpLink (SBET.US), SUI Group Holdings, TON Strategy, and Solana Company. These two types of lists correspond to different risk stages: potential removal lists are subject to final review confirmation in November, and companies on the watch list have not yet met the removal requirements, and may only be removed if they continue to fail the screening.
The risk of passive capital outflows is particularly significant. After the company is removed, funds that track relevant indices need to adjust their positions, which may form centralized sales. Strategy (MSTR.US) has become the focus of the market due to its huge size, and JPMorgan Chase (JPM.US) previously estimated that if eliminated by MSCI, Strategy (MSTR.US) may face a capital outflow of about 2.8 billion US dollars; if other major index vendors follow suit, this scale may surge to about 8.8 billion US dollars. In response, Strategy (MSTR.US) emphasized that the fund tracking MSCI GIMI holds about 13 million shares of MSTR, accounting for only 3.1% of its basic share capital, which is equivalent to about 60% of its 30-day average daily trading volume, and believes that the relevant adjustments will not have a substantial impact.
However, trading volume is not equivalent to the ability to accept net sales. The deeper hidden danger is whether the exit from the index will reduce valuation premiums, thereby reducing the efficiency of financing currency purchases.
Pressure on the financing side is becoming the biggest challenge facing treasury companies. These types of companies usually finance by issuing stocks, bonds, or preferred shares, and then buy crypto assets. When common shares have a high premium compared to net assets, issuing shares and buying coins can effectively increase the corresponding assets for each share; once the premium narrows, financing of the same scale requires issuing more shares, and the dilution effect on the original shareholders will increase significantly. If it were to shift more to debt or preferred stock financing, the company would also have to bear corresponding interest, dividends and repayment pressure. Strategy (MSTR.US) argues that the company does not passively hold Bitcoin, but rather develops financing and financial products business based on it, and emphasizes that the Bitcoin business has been disclosed as an operating division in accordance with the US General Accounting Standards, accusing MSCI of using the new framework to repackage previous exclusion plans against digital asset treasury companies.
Strategy (MSTR.US) CEO Michael Saylor questioned MSCI's differential treatment of different assets in an interview with Bloomberg, pointing out that “oil, gas, land, and machinery are all capital, but Bitcoin is not,” believing that this reflects prejudice against Bitcoin. Metaplanet, on the other hand, tried to demonstrate its treasury management capabilities through actual transactions. The company sold 10,000 BTC in the third quarter and then bought 11,000 BTC, saying the move was aimed at demonstrating Bitcoin's ability to cash out and cover interest-bearing debt.
However, monetization capacity is not the same concept as operating ability. Selling coins to obtain cash does not mean that the main business can continue to generate cash, and buying back more bitcoins does not necessarily change the structure where assets are mainly invested in positions and expansion relies on financing. Active asset trading itself is not enough to guarantee that they pass screening; we still need to see how these activities are reflected in financial indicators.
In the long run, although the new MSCI regulations will not directly end the treasury model, they may significantly weaken index funding's support for this model. The November final list will determine which companies will exit the index, and the more profound impact is the reshaping of valuation logic.
If the valuation premium narrows, treasury companies must prove that they can continue to increase the net assets per share of common shareholders against the backdrop of declining efficiency in financing and purchasing currency. This is not only a test of the financial structure, but also the ultimate test of shareholders' ability to create value. As regulators and index agencies define 'business essential' more clearly, models that rely on asset price fluctuations rather than endogenous business growth will face a more severe living environment. Treasury companies will need to find a new balance between financing costs, asset structure, and shareholder returns to cope with the upcoming market revaluation.