MSCI new regulations block passive buying, MicroStrategy still gains a $3.7 billion premium

RektRecovery · 2026-01-08T18:22:11+00:00

MSCI has decided to exclude cryptocurrency-focused companies like MicroStrategy from the index, directly affecting passive fund purchases. Although some optimists like Max Keiser believe the impact will be limited, market analysts see this move as a reflection of traditional finance's cautious attitude towards crypto assets. Meanwhile, MicroStrategy secured $3.7 billion in financing, indicating recognition from the capital markets, but some also believe this is a price manipulation strategy by Wall Street.

RektRecovery

2026-01-08 18:22:11

Abstract generation in progress

【Crypto World】MSCI’s recent new regulation has caused a huge stir—it decided to exclude new shares of cryptocurrency-intensive companies like MicroStrategy from the index. This decision directly impacts the buying pressure from passive funds.

Of course, there are optimistic voices within the Bitcoin community. Max Keiser believes the impact is not that significant, reasoning that when MSTR’s stock price rises along with Bitcoin, forced buying will still exist. It sounds reasonable, but market analysts have a different view: this move actually limits the potential upside, and more importantly, it reflects that traditional finance still maintains a cautious or defensive attitude towards crypto assets.

Interestingly, MicroStrategy recently received a $3.7 billion premium, indicating that the capital market’s recognition of this company is indeed high. This influx of funds fully demonstrates its capital strength. However, commentators like Quinten Francois take a broader perspective—they believe that MSCI’s move is essentially part of a carefully crafted price manipulation strategy by Wall Street, using regulation and index adjustments as a pretext to influence market liquidity.

BTC0,34%

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GetRichLeek

· 01-09 17:05

Damn, MSCI's move is really shady... Passive buying was cut off, then they turned around and injected 3.7 billion. Are they playing a double game with this move?

View OriginalReply0

defi_detective

· 01-08 21:32

Really, MSCI's move is outrageous. Kicking out MSTR and still trying to block passive buying? Laughable, it only highlights Wall Street's double standards.

View OriginalReply0

GasOptimizer

· 01-08 18:50

3.7 billion hedge MSCI threshold fee… Tsk, can this arbitrage space be modeled? Passive fund outflows are roughly offset by active fund inflows, so the net flow shouldn't be that dire. Data speaks for itself; historically, these types of rejection events have an average impact cycle of only 3-6 months, so there's no need to be overly pessimistic.

View OriginalReply0

ReverseFOMOguy

· 01-08 18:29

MSCI really played a tough hand, just not wanting retail investors to get on board through passive funds.

View OriginalReply0