2025-12-06 21:33:59

A Bitcoin treasury heavyweight just fired back at a controversial rule proposal. Strive—ranked as the 14th-largest publicly traded firm holding BTC—is pushing hard against MSCI's plan to exclude companies with over 50% digital asset exposure from certain indexes.

Their argument? The threshold is impractical and would blindside retail investors who rely on passive funds. Worse yet, it wouldn't even catch the companies MSCI claims to target. The pushback highlights growing tension between traditional financial gatekeepers and crypto-forward corporations navigating uncharted regulatory waters.

This isn't just about one firm's balance sheet—it's a proxy battle over how institutional capital should interact with blockchain assets in publicly traded markets.

BTC-0.96%

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.

6 Likes

Reward
6
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TradFiRefugee

· 1h ago

MSCI is really out of line with this move... The 50% threshold is basically making things difficult for companies that are truly all-in on blockchain, but it doesn't even touch the core issues. A classic case of regulators deceiving themselves. Strive did a great job calling them out this time—someone needs to step up and expose these little tricks from traditional finance. Damn, in the end, retail investors in passive funds have to foot the bill. At its core, these rules are just a disguised form of suppression. By the way, Strive is ranked 14th... For a company of that size to take on MSCI shows they really have no confidence in this system anymore. Classic power play... Institutions are starting to get anxious; what they're really fighting over is pricing power. Is MSCI trying to build a moat for institutional investors? What a joke—if these rules were really that effective... Honestly, you can tell the 50% figure was never actually tested. It's just an arbitrary number. That's how traditional finance always is—always late to act, then forced to change the rules.

View OriginalReply0

ProposalManiac

· 15h ago

This 50% threshold set by MSCI seems intended as a filter but ends up missing a bunch of 🤔. It's a typical "one-size-fits-all" mentality—in terms of governance mechanisms, this threshold design simply doesn't consider enough incentive compatibility, so it's no surprise it's being exploited.

View OriginalReply0

FUDwatcher

· 15h ago

This MSCI trick should have been exposed a long time ago. They're just trying to block us crypto native companies. It's hilarious.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 15h ago

Damn, MSCI really pulled a move here. Trying to cut off all token-holding companies with a 50% threshold? Wake up, this is just traditional finance being scared of the on-chain world.

View OriginalReply0

ConsensusDissenter

· 15h ago

This move by Strive is quite interesting; they just don't want to be treated like second-class citizens by MSCI... But to be honest, setting the threshold at 50% is really outrageous. It feels like traditional finance is pretending to be orderly while actually causing trouble.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-4745f9ce

· 16h ago

Yeah, this move by MSCI is a bit clumsy. Do they really think retail investors are that easy to fool?

View OriginalReply0

Trending TopicsView More
#JoinGrowthPointsDrawToWiniPhone17
283.43K Popularity
#DecemberMarketOutlook
76.07K Popularity
#PostonSquaretoEarn$50
13.31K Popularity
#LINKETFToLaunch
11.73K Popularity
#SharingMy100xToken
14.97K Popularity

Hot Gate FunView More

1
ICBGIceberg
MC:$8.65KHolders:8
19.37%
2
GBIRDGBird
MC:$3.53KHolders:1
0.00%
3
HLHuLi
MC:$3.53KHolders:1
0.00%
4
HRUMHrum
MC:$3.52KHolders:1
0.00%
5
HLHuLI
MC:$3.53KHolders:1
0.00%

Sitemap