Bitcoin Community Calls JP Morgan Boycott Amid Looming MSCI’s Crypto Exclusion: Is Wall Street Afraid of Crypto Treasuries?

The Bitcoin community, including Michael Saylor’s Strategy and other Bitcoin supporters, has initiated a coordinated boycott of JPMorgan, a global financial services firm and one of the largest banks in the United States.

This development is as a result of revelations that the banking giant circulated a research note highlighting a proposed change to Morgan Stanley Capital International’s (MSCI) 2026 index methodology, a change that could exclude companies holding large (from 50% above) amounts of Bitcoin from major global equity indexes.

The update, if adopted, would reshape how public markets classify companies with significant digital-asset exposure, raising concerns among Bitcoin advocates that Wall Street is attempting to marginalize Bitcoin-treasury firms, which may ultimately impact Bitcoin price.

The note triggered swift backlash, with many interpreting it as JPMorgan attempting to pressure MSCI. The crypto community reacted immediately, as social media quickly filled with posts, statements, and videos urging users to withdraw their funds from JPMorgan.

MSCI’s Proposed Crypto-Exposure Rule Explained

If implemented according to the proposed plan in January 2026, companies with high digital-asset exposure could be removed from major MSCI benchmarks, such as the MSCI USA and MSCI World Indexes.

JPMorgan’s research note warned that such removals could trigger large passive outflows, since index-tracking funds would be required to sell the affected stocks. Although these potential consequences apply across the market, the Bitcoin community interpreted JPMorgan’s amplification of the proposal as particularly damaging for Bitcoin-treasury firms, including but not limited to Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy).

Other Bitcoin supporters argued that the proposed move by JPMorgan stigmatizes companies that adopt Bitcoin as a treasury reserve or conduct Bitcoin-based financial operations.

For many in the community, the issue is less about one company and more about the broader principle: they believe the traditional banking sector is trying to limit the growth of corporate Bitcoin adoption by influencing the index ecosystem.

Despite its name, MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) Inc. is an independent company responsible for developing, calculating, and maintaining its indexes, including MSCI World, MSCI Emerging Markets, MSCI ACWI, and others. There is no evidence that JPMorgan influences MSCI’s methodology or can change index composition.

Reactions and Strategies From Bitcoin Supporters

The boycott call has gained massive momentum, especially on Bitcoin-related social media platforms. Several high-profile figures are urging both financial and symbolic pushback against JPMorgan.

In response to the call, Grant Cardone, a real estate investor and Bitcoin advocate, said, “I just pulled $20 million from Chase and am suing them for credit card malfeasance.” Another supporter, a Bitcoin advocate, Max Keiser, said, “Crash JP Morgan and buy Strategy and BTC.”

These statements reflect a broader mobilization online, where pro-bitcoin voices are uniting over the idea that this is not just a corporate risk but a threat to Bitcoin’s broader institutional adoption.

In response to the MSCI Index Matter, Michael Saylor, founder and chairman of Strategy, via his official X, said, “Strategy is not a fund, not a trust, and not a holding company. We’re a publicly traded operating company with a $500 million software business and a unique treasury strategy that uses Bitcoin as productive capital.”

Excerpt of Saylor’s response to the MSCI Index Debacle. Source: Michael Saylor’s Official X Account

He concluded, saying, “Index classification doesn’t define us. Our strategy is long-term, our conviction in Bitcoin is unwavering, and our mission remains unchanged: to build the world’s first digital monetary institution on a foundation of sound money and financial innovation.”

Overall Market Implications

If implemented by January 2026, the MSCI Index change could result in a structural reshaping in how public markets treat companies with significant Bitcoin exposure. MSCI indexes are tracked by trillions of dollars globally, and forced exclusions would compel passive index funds to liquidate positions in affected firms, effectively pushing them to sell crypto-related assets as part of the rebalancing.

According to JP Morgan’s research, the removal of Strategy from key MSCI Inc. indices could trigger $2.8 billion in passive outflows, with up to $8.8 billion at risk if other index providers follow, marking the first time a global index provider formally penalizes companies for holding Bitcoin on their balance sheet. These outflows will inevitably impact valuation despite the company’s performance.

They noted that it could lead to a dangerous precedent where corporate Bitcoin adoption becomes a liability rather than a strategic hedge, and instead of firms being rewarded for innovation or treasury efficiency, they may be penalized by the MSCI, an outcome that critics say suppresses Bitcoin-forward business models.

This could also affect companies with high passive ownership, as passive funds are required to sell regardless of fundamental performance. In Strategy’s case, about a quarter of its market capitalisation is held by MSCI-tracking funds, suggesting that any removal could result in immediate and sizable liquidity pressure, reflecting that the penalty is more about market manipulation than corporate fundamentals.

Moreover, observers note that Wall Street’s framing of Bitcoin holding as a “risk factor” reveals institutional skepticism; some view the exclusion as an early example of the tension between traditional finance and emerging crypto companies.

The broader implications could extend to both retail and institutional investor behavior as they start to view Bitcoin-holding companies as less compatible with major indexes, affecting how capital is allocated beyond Strategy.

This affects Bitcoin holding companies, as they are now faced with the dilemma of choosing between aligning their treasury strategies to suit traditional indexing criteria or prioritizing long-term Bitcoin adoption. Should firms reduce their stakes on acquiring Bitcoin to maintain index inclusion, it could reduce institutional appetite and exert short-term pressure on BTC prices.

Conclusion: Is Wall Street Anti-Crypto Treasuries?

The MSCI index proposal and JPMorgan research on its potential impact reflect a critical turning point for companies holding Bitcoin. Firms like Strategy with huge amounts of BTC reserves, the decision to maintain and expand their portfolios is no longer considered strategic; rather, it’s now a structural challenge.

Forced exclusion will trigger immediate liquidity pressures, reducing valuations and limiting other firms from acquiring Bitcoin as a hedge against volatile fiat currency, negatively impacting corporate adoption.

Also, its effect could spread across BTC prices. Corporate treasuries’ demand has contributed to signalling institutional legitimacy and confidence in the asset, especially on Wall Street. However, if companies are mandated to reduce purchases or divest exclusion, it could temporarily slow down institutional demand and lead to short-term volatility of the asset.

This exposes a broader tension between Wall Street and the emerging digital asset economy. Index providers, passive funds, and traditional institutions are now faced with a fundamental question: should Bitcoin exposure be treated as a risk to be penalized or as a strategic, forward-looking corporate asset?

The answer will shape corporate adoption strategies for years, influencing not just individual firms but market-wide perceptions of Bitcoin’s legitimacy and stability.