Strive Calls On Msci To Rethink Its ‘unworkable’ Bitcoin Blacklist

Strive CEO Matt Cole has urged the MSCI to “let the market decide” whether they want to include Bitcoin-holding companies in their passive investments.

Nasdaq-listed Strive, the 14th-largest publicly-listed Bitcoin treasury firm, has urged MSCI to reconsider its proposed exclusion of major Bitcoin holding companies from its indexes.

In a letter to MSCI’s chairman and CEO, Henry Fernandez, Strive argued that excluding companies whose digital asset holdings comprise more than 50% of total assets would reduce passive investors’ exposure to growth sectors and would fail to capture companies it intends to.

Losing a spot in MSCI indexes could be a significant blow to digital asset treasury firms. JPMorgan analysts had earlier warned that Strategy, a Bitcoin treasury firm listed in the MSCI World Index, could lose $2.8 billion if MSCI moves ahead with the proposal.

Strategy chair Michael Saylor has since stated that the company is in communication with the index provider regarding the issue.

Strive CEO Matt Cole argued that major Bitcoin miners such as MARA Holdings, Riot Platforms and Hut 8 — all potential firms in the exclusion list — are rapidly diversifying their data centers to provide power and infrastructure for AI computing.

“Many analysts argue that the AI race is increasingly limited by access to power, not semiconductors. Bitcoin miners are ideally positioned to meet this rising demand,” he said.

“But even as AI revenue comes in, their Bitcoin will remain, and your exclusion would too, curtailing client participation in the fastest-growing part of the global economy.”

The exclusion would also cut off companies like Strategy and Metaplanet, which offer investors a similar product to a variety of structured notes linked to Bitcoin’s returns from the likes of JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, argued Cole.

“Bitcoin structured finance is as real a business for us as it is for JPMorgan. In fact, we, like other Bitcoin companies, have been open about our intent to make this our core vertical. It would be asymmetric for us to compete against traditional financiers, weighed down by a higher cost of capital from passive index providers’ penalties on the very Bitcoin enabling our offerings.”

Source: CoinTelegraph