Bitwise has publicly defended Strategy Inc. after MSCI proposed removing the company from its Global Investable Market Indexes, citing concerns over how digital-asset-heavy firms are being treated.
In a formal statement, Bitwise said it was disappointed by MSCI’s proposal and argued that indexes should remain neutral tools designed to reflect markets, not judge business models. According to Bitwise, introducing subjective eligibility criteria undermines what should be a rules-based and objective process.
Why Bitwise Says The MSCI Proposal Misses The Point
Bitwise emphasized that global indexes have historically included companies with concentrated exposure to single assets. Examples range from energy producers to REITs, where asset concentration has never been grounds for exclusion.
MSCI’s proposed change would exclude Strategy and other Digital Asset Treasury companies whose digital asset holdings exceed 50% of total assets. Bitwise warned that this approach risks setting a precedent where digital assets are treated differently from other asset classes, despite similar concentration profiles existing elsewhere in global markets.
Impact On Investors And Market Neutrality
As one of the world’s largest crypto asset managers, Bitwise stated that Strategy offers shareholders exposure that bitcoin exchange-traded products cannot replicate. The firm said it remains confident in the long-term success of Strategy’s bitcoin treasury operations.
Bitwise also argued that MSCI’s proposal could disadvantage investors by removing access to a fast-growing asset class and a key industry leader. By applying scrutiny not used elsewhere, the index change would, in Bitwise’s view, single out digital assets unfairly and limit diversification options for investors seeking digital-asset exposure.
A Call For Neutral Index Construction
The firm urged MSCI to uphold the standards that made its indexes global benchmarks. Bitwise echoed Strategy’s position that indexes should “reflect neutrally and faithfully the next era of financial technology,” rather than impose discretionary rules that reshape market representation.
The statement reinforces growing industry resistance to what many see as inconsistent treatment of digital asset companies within traditional financial benchmarks.
