The Bitcoin Policy Institute has published a paper questioning MSCI's proposed "non-operating company" classification rule, arguing the change could force Strategy and Metaplanet out of the index provider's benchmarks and may trace back to an earlier review of corporate crypto treasury structures.

The paper, released by the Bitcoin-focused think tank, takes aim at what its authors describe as MSCI's "invisible committee" — the internal body responsible for index classification decisions whose deliberations and criteria are not publicly disclosed. The authors argue that the opacity of this process leaves companies exposed to arbitrary reclassification, with material consequences for shareholders and passive investment flows.

At issue is MSCI's proposed rule governing "non-operating companies." Under the framework described in the paper, a company deemed to be non-operating — one whose primary activity is holding assets rather than conducting an operating business — could face removal from MSCI's global indexes. Strategy, the largest corporate holder of bitcoin, and Metaplanet, the Japanese company that has adopted a similar bitcoin accumulation strategy, would be the most prominent companies affected by such a determination.

The stakes are considerable for both firms. Inclusion in major indexes such as the MSCI World Index drives passive allocation from exchange-traded funds and index-tracking portfolios that collectively manage trillions of dollars. Removal would cut off a structural source of demand for the companies' shares and, in Strategy's case, could complicate the capital-raising engine that underpins its bitcoin acquisition program.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute paper also raises questions about the rule's origins. According to the authors, the proposed classification may have roots in an earlier review of crypto treasury companies, suggesting the policy was shaped with digital-asset-heavy balance sheets specifically in mind rather than emerging from a neutral, principles-based process. The authors contend that a rule targeted at a specific corporate strategy, developed through an undisclosed committee process, undermines the credibility of index governance.

For Strategy, the operational consequences of removal would extend beyond passive flows. The company's model depends on access to capital markets — through equity issuance and convertible debt — to fund ongoing bitcoin purchases. Index membership supports liquidity and valuation in its equity, which in turn affects the terms available on new issuance. A reclassification that impaired this loop would affect the company's ability to execute its stated strategy, not merely its share price.

Metaplanet faces a parallel dynamic in the Japanese market, where MSCI index inclusion similarly anchors institutional and passive ownership. The Tokyo-listed company has built its bitcoin treasury strategy on the assumption of continued access to mainstream investment channels.

The think tank's criticism adds a governance dimension to what has so far been largely a market-structure question. Index providers operate with significant discretion over inclusion criteria, and their decisions function as de facto regulatory actions for asset allocators, even though they sit outside formal securities regulation. The Bitcoin Policy Institute is effectively arguing that this discretion demands greater transparency, particularly when a rule appears calibrated to a specific asset class.

MSCI has not publicly detailed the deliberative process behind the proposed rule, and the classification criteria for "non-operating" status remain subject to the provider's internal review. Companies facing potential reclassification typically have limited avenues for appeal outside the provider's own consultation mechanisms.

The outcome of the rulemaking process will shape how passive capital treats corporate bitcoin treasurers more broadly. If MSCI finalizes the non-operating classification as drafted, other index providers — whose methodologies often move in tandem — could follow, redefining the investment-channel assumptions on which the corporate bitcoin treasury model has been built.