‘National Security Threat’ If MSCI Drops Crypto Treasuries, Warns Bitcoin Heavyweight Strategy
Bitcoin treasury heavyweight Strategy has warned that a plan by global index provider MSCI to sideline companies holding significant crypto reserves could backfire on the United States – not just financially, but geopolitically.
In a detailed, 12-page letter sent to MSCI on Wednesday, the Tysons Corner, Virginia–based firm argued that excluding “crypto-buying” or Bitcoin-treasury companies from major indices would weaken America’s strategic position in the race for digital-asset leadership.
According to Strategy, MSCI’s proposal to treat firms with substantial digital asset treasuries as ineligible or less eligible for index inclusion is more than a technical tweak. The company claims such a move would effectively penalize U.S. corporations that are experimenting with Bitcoin and other digital assets as part of their balance sheet strategy.
“MSCI should decline to implement its proposal,” the letter states. “It would undermine the federal government’s goal of promoting digital assets while stifling innovation, impeding economic development, and harming national security.”
Strategy: Crypto Policy Is Now Geopolitics
Strategy’s argument rests on a clear premise: digital assets are no longer a niche financial tool; they are becoming part of the infrastructure of the global economy. As more governments and central banks explore central bank digital currencies, tokenized assets, and cross-border settlement tools, Strategy says U.S. companies need to be free – and incentivized – to experiment.
Removing or disadvantaging crypto-treasury firms in equity indices, the company warns, could push innovation offshore. Global competitors in regions with more accommodating regulatory and index policies could gain a structural edge, attracting both capital and talent away from the United States.
The letter stresses that capital markets do not exist in a vacuum. If U.S.-listed companies are discouraged from holding or integrating digital assets, while competitors in other jurisdictions are not, the U.S. risks falling behind in an area that could soon be as critical as traditional banking infrastructure or the internet.
Citing Washington’s Own Pro‑Crypto Signals
To underscore its point, Strategy points back to Washington itself. The firm notes that the federal government, particularly under the Trump administration, has repeatedly signaled an interest in fostering a domestic digital asset ecosystem rather than ceding ground to rivals.
By highlighting the prior administration’s pro-crypto posture, Strategy is effectively arguing that MSCI’s proposal would run counter to broader U.S. policy objectives. If policymakers view digital assets as strategically important, the letter suggests, then financial gatekeepers should not introduce new barriers that make it harder for U.S. firms to participate.
In that context, Strategy frames MSCI’s contemplated exclusion as a policy decision by another name: one that could weaken the coherence of the U.S. approach to digital assets at a time when global rivals are moving quickly.
Index Rules Should Be Neutral and Forward-Looking, Firm Says
Strategy submitted its views as part of MSCI’s formal consultation on how to classify and treat companies with significant digital asset holdings or treasuries. The company insists that index standards must remain “neutral, consistent, and reflective of global market evolution,” rather than attempting to second-guess the merits of a particular treasury strategy.
From Strategy’s perspective, holding Bitcoin on the balance sheet is analogous to any other capital allocation decision: a strategic choice that should be judged by investors in the market, not pre-filtered by index rules.
If index providers begin carving out exceptions around digital assets, the firm argues, they risk politicizing what should be an objective methodology. Over time, that could erode trust in index-based products that are marketed as broad, unbiased representations of the investable market.
Why MSCI’s Decision Matters So Much
While MSCI is not a regulator, its indices are the backbone of countless exchange-traded funds, mutual funds, and institutional portfolios around the world. Inclusion in a major MSCI index can determine whether a company is accessible to large pools of passive and benchmark-tracking capital.
If crypto-treasury firms are sidelined or excluded, their stocks could face reduced liquidity, lower demand, and a higher cost of capital. Strategy warns that this would send a chilling signal to corporate boards considering Bitcoin or other digital assets as part of diversified treasury management.
In practice, Strategy suggests, MSCI’s move would not simply be a classification adjustment; it could become a powerful deterrent against corporate Bitcoin adoption – precisely at the moment when digital asset integration is becoming systemically relevant.
The National Security Angle: A New Front in the Crypto Debate
The most striking element of Strategy’s letter is its explicit framing of the issue as a national security concern. The company argues that digital assets – and the infrastructure built around them – are quickly becoming a strategic resource.
Control over settlement networks, custody infrastructure, and the regulatory standards that govern them could translate into long-term geopolitical leverage, Strategy suggests. If U.S. capital markets discourage digital asset experimentation, other nations may move faster, embedding their standards and platforms into the global financial system.
In that scenario, American policymakers could find themselves relying on foreign-controlled technologies or liquidity hubs, echoing previous strategic debates over telecommunications equipment, semiconductor supply chains, or critical minerals.
From this vantage point, keeping U.S. firms competitive in the digital asset arena is not just about profit; it is about ensuring that the United States helps set the rules of the next financial era, rather than having them imposed from abroad.
Innovation vs. Risk: The Core Tension
Strategy does not deny that digital assets bring new forms of risk, from price volatility to cybersecurity concerns. However, the firm contends that the proper response is risk management and clear regulation, not preemptive exclusion from major financial benchmarks.
The letter implies that if large, public companies are discouraged from participating, innovation will not stop – it will simply migrate to less transparent, less regulated environments. That outcome, Strategy argues, would be worse for both financial stability and national security, as it would reduce the visibility and oversight that come with public markets.
By contrast, allowing crypto-treasury strategies to develop inside the existing regulatory perimeter, with market-based discipline from investors, could foster a healthier and more secure ecosystem over time.
What Exclusion Could Mean for Corporate Crypto Adoption
Beyond macro-level concerns, Strategy’s appeal highlights a practical corporate dilemma. Boards and CFOs considering digital assets routinely weigh market perception and index inclusion risk alongside accounting, legal, and regulatory questions.
If MSCI formally penalizes or excludes firms for holding Bitcoin or other digital assets, that policy would likely show up in boardroom risk memos. Some companies might cancel or scale back planned allocations, fearing a downgrade in their index status or a reduction in their investor base.
Such a feedback loop could slow the pace of corporate adoption and experimentation, delaying the development of best practices for custody, disclosure, and risk controls. Strategy argues that this would ultimately leave U.S. markets less prepared for a future in which digital assets are fully mainstream.
Passive Investing as a Policy Lever – Intended or Not
One of the subtler points in Strategy’s stance is how modern passive investing turns index providers into powerful, if unofficial, policy actors. Because so much capital now follows index benchmarks mechanically, a rule change at the index level can reshape incentives across entire sectors.
By raising the national security flag, Strategy is warning that decisions that appear technical or narrow can have profound ripple effects. In its view, if MSCI wants to retain its reputation as a neutral, data-driven arbiter, it should avoid tethering index eligibility to a company’s choice to hold or not hold digital assets.
Instead, Strategy advocates that digital asset exposure should be disclosed clearly and left for investors to evaluate, rather than being pre-judged by an index methodology committee.
The Bigger Picture: Digital Assets as Strategic Infrastructure
Strategy’s intervention fits into a broader trend: the reframing of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology as part of strategic national infrastructure rather than a speculative side show.
From cross-border remittances and trade finance to tokenized securities and programmable payments, a growing share of financial experimentation now involves digital assets or blockchain rails. Countries that support this experimentation may gain an advantage in efficiency, capital formation, and global influence.
Against this backdrop, Strategy contends that it would be shortsighted for a leading global index provider to adopt rules that, in effect, penalize early adopters among U.S. corporates. Doing so, the firm warns, risks weakening the country’s hand in what is fast becoming a competition over who will dominate the next generation of financial technology.
Strategy’s Bottom Line to MSCI
In its response to MSCI’s consultation on digital asset treasury companies, Strategy urges the index provider to keep its standards:
– Neutral with respect to corporate treasury strategies, including crypto,
– Consistent across asset classes and balance sheet choices, and
– Reflective of the global market’s evolution toward digital assets.
Anything less, the firm argues, would send the wrong signal to markets, slow economic development, and, over the long term, erode U.S. security and competitiveness in a world where digital finance is no longer optional – it is foundational.