The crypto market is sliding again, and emotions are high. Bitcoin has dropped to new local lows around the 82,000 dollar mark, while Ethereum has traded near 2,700 dollars and even dipped into the 2,600 range on some venues. There is no single global macro headline explaining this move, which is why many traders are looking for structural reasons rather than simple sentiment swings. In that environment, the MSCI digital asset treasury companies consultation that was announced on October 10 has quickly become a focal point. Some observers are even linking the October 10 “bloodbath” directly to that MSCI letter, while others point to liquidity stress and a one off technical glitch as the real trigger.

MSCI’s October 10 Update

MSCI’s announcement on October 10 laid out the core issue plainly. The index provider said it is extending its consultation on how companies that mainly hold Bitcoin or other digital assets on their balance sheets should be treated inside the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes. The consultation has been running for some time, but October’s update has drawn fresh attention because it touched directly on digital asset treasury companies.

MSCI noted that several market participants believe these companies can resemble investment funds, especially in cases where most of their capital raising is used to acquire more crypto. Investment funds are not eligible for equity index inclusion, which is why the comparison matters. MSCI said it is considering a rule that would exclude a company from its equity indexes if half or more of its total assets consist of digital assets. That proposal is not final, but it is now on the table.

The index provider also confirmed the process is still open. Feedback will be accepted through December 31, with final conclusions expected on January 15, 2026. Any rule changes would then be applied during the February 2026 Index Review. In preparation for that, MSCI published a preliminary list of securities that could be affected under the proposed criteria. It also said it would temporarily pause increases to share counts, inclusion factors, or size-segment migrations for companies such as Metaplanet and Capital B until the review is completed.

Why Traders Linked the Announcement to the Market Drop

Since October 10, the market has gone through one of the sharpest deleveraging phases in recent memory, with Bitcoin dropping from its October peak above 120,000 dollars down into the low 80,000 dollar range and other major coins following.

Within that backdrop, one narrative from crypto observers focuses on digital asset treasury companies such as Strategy (MSTR) and BitMine Immersion (BMNR). The rough argument goes like this:

These companies have been key buyers in this cycle, using capital markets to raise cash and then directing that capital into Bitcoin or Ether. Because their market value grows as their crypto holdings grow, they become candidates for inclusion in major indexes. Once they are in, passive index funds are required to hold their stock, which can further amplify demand. When MSCI questions whether such businesses should be treated as operating companies or as fund like vehicles, the fear is that this entire loop is at risk.

Analysts at banks such as JPMorgan have already run scenarios on Strategy, suggesting that if MSCI ultimately removed it from major indexes, passive funds could be forced to sell billions of dollars of stock. Those are estimates, not decisions, but they have fed into market anxiety.

From there, some commentators have pushed the idea that the October 10 crash was “smart money” reacting to that MSCI announcement, preparing for a future where digital asset treasury companies are reclassified and pushed out of indexes. This view is speculative and forward looking. MSCI has not said that any specific company will be removed, and the consultation process is still in progress.

Also read: US and China Ease Trade Tensions on Trump’s Asia Diplomacy Tour

Strategy Pushes Back Against ‘Fund-Like’ Label

Strategy’s chairman, Michael Saylor, responded directly to the MSCI discussion in a recent post on X. In that statement, he argued that Strategy is not a fund, trust, or holding company. Instead, he described it as a publicly traded operating company with a substantial software business and a treasury strategy that uses Bitcoin as “productive capital”.

He highlighted that the company has launched multiple digital credit securities and products, and framed Strategy as a Bitcoin backed structured finance company that designs, issues, and manages instruments rather than simply sitting on a pile of assets. In his view, passive funds and closed end vehicles hold assets, while Strategy is building what he calls a “digital monetary institution” that innovates in both capital markets and software.

The important point for this article is not whether that argument will convince MSCI, but that the company is clearly positioning itself as an operating business rather than a passive Bitcoin wrapper. The final classification decision, however, sits with index providers, not with the company itself.

Related read: Michael Saylor Bitcoin Sale Rumors Addressed

BitMine Sees the Selloff Through a Different Lens

BitMine Immersion, another large digital asset treasury name, has taken a slightly different communication route. In its latest earnings release, the company reported more than 328 million dollars in net income for fiscal 2025, fully diluted earnings of 13.39 dollars per share, and announced a 0.01 dollar annual dividend, which it says makes it the first large cap crypto company to declare a recurring dividend.

BitMine also outlined its plan to launch the Made in America Validator Network, or MAVAN, a dedicated Ethereum staking infrastructure expected to go live in the first quarter of 2026. That move pushes the company further into running staking operations and infrastructure, not just accumulating and holding crypto as a balance sheet asset. Again, this evolution matters in the MSCI discussion because it complicates the question of where to draw the line between an “operating company” and something that behaves more like a fund.

Chairman Thomas “Tom” Lee has also offered his view on the October 10 crash. On CNBC, he has framed the current downturn as the result of a liquidity shock facing market-making firms, combined with a technical failure on a major exchange that caused a stablecoin depeg and triggered forced liquidations.

In his explanation, when liquidity providers lose large amounts of capital in a sudden shock, they cut risk, shrink their books, and sell assets to repair their balance sheets. That process, in his view, has created a “slow bleed” in prices that may take weeks to work through, similar to prior unwind periods.

USDe Price Error Added Fuel to Market Tensions

One concrete event that many sources agree on is the USDe oracle issue on October 10. On at least one major exchange, the synthetic dollar briefly printed as low as 0.65 dollars while it remained near its intended level elsewhere.

Because the exchange’s internal pricing system accepted that low print as valid, a wave of automatic liquidations was triggered across leveraged accounts that were using USDe as collateral or reference. As those liquidations cascaded, positions on other assets, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, were closed out, and the shock spread across platforms. The exchange later described this as a technical or oracle flaw and began refunding users whose positions were wrongly closed.

This event has also fed into a second debate. Some market participants, including long time investors on social media, argue that a powerful trading group used derivatives and that pricing error to push the market lower on purpose. Tom Lee has indicated that he broadly agrees that manipulation and a mechanical glitch both played a role, which has added fuel to the discussion.

Other analysts push back and say that claims of manipulation appear in every major drawdown, and that in this case a combination of heavy leverage, thin liquidity, and forced selling is a sufficient explanation. The key point is that there is no public confirmation of a coordinated market manipulation campaign. At this stage it remains a debated theory rather than a documented fact.

Where Things Stand Now

Right now, Bitcoin is trading near levels last seen in April, with intraday lows around 82,000 dollars, and Ethereum has retreated into the high 2,000 dollar range. Liquidations have run into the billions, spot ETFs have seen sizeable outflows, and broader risk sentiment is weak.

Against that backdrop, MSCI’s digital asset treasury companies review has become an easy anchor for fear. The consultation is real, the proposed 50 percent asset threshold is clearly documented, and the timeline for a decision is public. At the same time, there is no final ruling yet, and no confirmation that any specific company will be removed from indexes in February 2026.

Strategy is pushing back by emphasizing its operating business and structured finance activities. BitMine is leaning into its identity as both a treasury holder and an infrastructure builder with MAVAN and a newly announced dividend. Liquidity providers are still recalibrating after the October 10 shock, and the industry is debating how much of the current drawdown is structural stress and how much is opportunistic trading.