Publication date: November 27, 2025

The growth of institutional crypto owners is not only creating recognition in the financial world but also new risk assessments among index providers. One of the most notable developments is that MSCI is examining whether companies holding extremely large Bitcoin positions may become too risky to remain part of broad market indexes. Strategy (formerly Microstrategy), in particular, is currently the largest listed Bitcoin company in the world, and is at the center of the discussion as a result.

Strategy the company that turned the bitcoin strategy into market power

For years, Strategy was seen as a relatively unknown player in enterprise software, until the company decided to change course in 2020. Since then, Strategy has accumulated about 650,000 Bitcoin and has largely turned MSTR shares into leverage on the Bitcoin price. This makes the company not only one of the largest crypto owners in the world but also an influential factor in market sentiment.

When Strategy buys additional Bitcoin or announces strategic purchases, the market moves with it. Large investors often interpret these moves as signals of institutional confidence, so purchases by Strategy regularly lead to short-term price increases in Bitcoin. The company has thus become a kind of institutional catalyst within the ecosystem, a role that no other publicly traded company in the crypto market fulfills.

MSCI's concerns about extreme exposure and volatility

Where investors see Strategy's Bitcoin strategy as bold or visionary, MSCI is looking through a different lens. MSCI is responsible for compiling some of the world's most widely followed indexes, on which ETFs and pension funds depend. A core principle of these indexes is stability.

Strategy represents an anomaly in this. Because of its huge Bitcoin position, the stock moves almost entirely with the price of Bitcoin. Within MSCI, this leads to two bottlenecks. The first is volatility. Bitcoin's daily fluctuations translate directly to the MSTR stock, which increases the risk within a broader index. The second bottleneck is the extreme concentration in an external asset. As a result, Strategy no longer reflects its original sector, but actually functions as a Bitcoin tracker within a traditional stock index.

MSCI is therefore investigating whether companies with an over-reliance on crypto should be removed from the indices. For Strategy, this could mean potentially losing its index position, which could cause institutional selling pressure. Strategy is not alone in this; companies such as Marathon Digital Holdings (MARA), Riot Platforms (RIOT) and Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) also fall within the category of large bitcoin owners. In this regard, Tesla is less at risk of exclusion because the company has significantly higher revenue from its core non-crypto business.


The crypto market's reaction to the possible MSCI decision

The rumors of a possible removal from MSCI indexes immediately caused conversation in the crypto world. Proponents of the Bitcoin strategy feel that MSCI is sticking to outdated models and still treating crypto as an anomalous category. According to them, Bitcoin has long since become part of a modern financial strategy.

Critics, however, emphasize that Strategy's extensive Bitcoin positioning inadvertently ties the crypto market more tightly to traditional indexes. If ETFs were to be required to sell in an MSCI adjustment, it could create volatility in both the stock and crypto markets. This makes the situation exceptionally sensitive, especially during periods when market sentiment is already nervous.

Price development of Strategy compared to Bitcoin

The comparison between Strategy and Bitcoin returns, as visible in the chart below, shows how in recent years the lines have crept closer and closer together. Whereas in earlier years, MSTR still had its own price profile, as of 2023, the stock is almost completely correlated with Bitcoin.

MSTR shares have actually moved more strongly than Bitcoin in many periods, due to the leverage of its corporate structure and the use of debt to buy additional Bitcoin. MSTR's recent sharp decline from its peak shows how painful this dependence can be when Bitcoin corrects. For MSCI, this strong linkage represents an important argument in the ongoing discussion.




What does this mean for the broader crypto market?

The potential removal of Strategy from MSCI indices is more than a corporate issue. It touches on a more fundamental issue within the crypto market. If traditional institutional models start excluding companies that hold large Bitcoin positions, it could discourage companies from pursuing similar strategies. It could slow the pace of institutional adoption. On the other hand, this discussion marks just how far crypto has now penetrated traditional financial systems. Bitcoin is no longer a fringe phenomenon but a factor forcing index builders to rethink their structure.

For the crypto market, this means that the institutionalization of digital assets is in a new phase where regulation, risk models and traditional financial frameworks are increasingly influencing the behavior of major players.

Conclusion

The relationship between Strategy and MSCI is under pressure, and the final decision could have important implications for both MSTR stock and the cryptocurrency market as a whole. What is clear is that with its exceptional Bitcoin strategy, the company has pushed a boundary that challenges index builders to rethink their views on risk and diversification.

Whether MSCI ultimately moves to exclude remains unclear for now. But the discussion alone shows that crypto and traditional markets are no longer separate worlds. Strategy is at exactly that crossroads, and the outcome of this process could set a new direction for both institutional crypto owners and global indices.

Disclaimer: Investing involves risk. Our analysts are not financial advisors. Always consult an advisor when making financial decisions. The information and tips provided on this website are based on our analysts' own insights and experiences. They are therefore for educational purposes only.