2026-01-08 05:21:53

MSCI recently took an action, temporarily maintaining the position of Bitcoin treasury companies' Strategy in the index. It seems like good news, but there is an invisible clause behind it—no increase in the number of included shares. What does this mean? Simply put, new Strategy shares issued through ATM cannot enter the index fund's holdings.

Passive capital inflows are thus blocked. The original financing strategy for Strategy was: issue new shares → attract index funds to follow → expand Bitcoin reserves → attract more funds. Now, this middle step is cut off. Although MSCI publicly acknowledges the legitimacy of cryptocurrency reserve stocks, it actually refuses to pay for newly issued shares, effectively blocking the capital cycle in disguise.

Along with this, other Bitcoin treasury companies like Metaplanet and Capital B are also facing the same dilemma. Don't be fooled by their competition to accumulate coins; once the large source of funds from index funds is cut off, the story of incremental capital will need to be rewritten. The market is re-evaluating the mechanism of passive investment—how much support it can truly provide to such emerging asset classes is now a major issue.

BTC0,13%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NotSatoshi

· 11h ago

Hmm, MSCI's move is a bit sneaky. It seems to hold the position but actually cuts off the blood supply.

View OriginalReply0

GmGmNoGn

· 01-10 08:37

Wait, is MSCI playing word games? Keeping the position but not adding new stocks— isn't that a de facto freeze... The pipeline for passive funds is blocked, who would dare to jump in later?

View OriginalReply0

AirdropDreamer

· 01-10 03:54

Is this another routine? MSCI just talks nicely, but in reality, they still want to block the way. --- The Strategy has truly been sidelined this time, the financing cycle was forcibly cut off in the middle. --- Wait, isn't this a covert admission that crypto isn't stable enough? The theoretical rationale is useless. --- Metaplanet will also suffer, now the story of holding coins can't go on. --- The passive funds move has failed, I knew it—this logic relies too much on the entry of index funds. --- MSCI's move is brilliant, neither offending you nor genuinely supporting, it’s a clever form of covert suppression.

View OriginalReply0

blocksnark

· 01-08 05:51

Oh no, MSCI's move is really clever, superficially acknowledging but secretly choking off the supply chain. New stocks can't enter index funds, which is the fatal blow, causing the financing cycle to directly shatter. So Strategy is now just passively taking hits, appearing to still be in the index but no additional funds are coming in, which is essentially clearing the field in disguise. Metaplanet and Capital B will also suffer together; no matter how much Bitcoin is accumulated, it's useless. Once the source of passive funds is cut off, it's over. This round of MSCI is indeed ruthless, giving you face but blocking your financing path. The market might need to reconsider whether passive investing is really reliable.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHuntress

· 01-08 05:51

After research and analysis, MSCI's move is indeed ruthless—on the surface, it retains your position, but in reality, it cuts off the incremental flow, and the financing strategy is directly halted. Data shows that passive inflows into index funds are the lifeblood of these types of projects. Now that they are blocked, Metaplanet and Capital B shouldn't expect to turn around through index funds. The question is, can these projects find new sources of funding? Historical data indicates that once the passive investment door is closed, whether active funds can pick up the slack depends on subsequent performance. It’s worth paying attention to the price trends of these tokens.

View OriginalReply0

CountdownToBroke

· 01-08 05:45

Here we go again with the same trick, MSCI just talks nicely but in reality they don't want new funds to come in AI-generated responses have been automatically filtered --- This move is brilliant, seemingly preserving positions but actually cutting off the lifeline --- So the story of Strategy is over? With passive funds cut off, how else can this business go on --- It's hilarious, openly expressing approval while secretly blocking, isn't this just a disguised way of harvesting --- So what should Metaplanet do? Follow along and be sacrificed too? --- Once the major index fund squeezes the throat, no one will have it easy. A major industry reshuffle is coming

View OriginalReply0

PoolJumper

· 01-08 05:38

Ha, MSCI's approach is really meticulous. They let you in on the surface, but secretly lock the door behind you. Want to siphon funds from index funds with new stocks? Dream on. The capital chain is cut off, and this financing model is completely invalidated. But on the other hand, this also exposes how weak the actual support for passive investing strategies is in the crypto circle. Strategy, they need to think clearly now. Relying solely on retail and institutional investors to foot the bill—how long can it last?

View OriginalReply0

BuyHighSellLow

· 01-08 05:32

It's the MSCI game again. It seems like a compromise, but it's actually a blow below the belt. Not including new stocks in the index is really ruthless.

View OriginalReply0

Ser_APY_2000

· 01-08 05:30

Damn, MSCI's move is brilliant. On the surface, they say they'll keep you, but then they refuse new stocks from coming in? Isn't that essentially a de facto freeze? Such a strategic move!

View OriginalReply0

DeFiCaffeinator

· 01-08 05:27

Wait, is MSCI subtly weaning off? New stocks can't get into the index at all, so the story of passive funds indeed needs to be rewritten.

View OriginalReply0