Stablecoins, Bitcoin v. Ethereum, and MSCI’s decision not to exclude DATs from indexes had Web3 minds talking this week.
MSCI won’t be excluding digital asset treasuries (DATs) from its indexes
“(Recently) the MSCI decided it won’t be excluding digital asset treasuries (DATs) from its indexes for the time being, so why isn’t the crypto market soaring? The main reason is that the decision comes with major caveats that naturally put DATs at a disadvantage compared to ETFs, by restricting their ability to benefit from new share issuance and the passive inflows it would typically bring.
“This move suggests MSCI isn’t thinking solely about consumer protection – if this were the only objective, a full ban may have been a more obvious choice. This move may be more about putting a leash on DATs and ensuring the investment landscape remains competitive for traditional players.
“It’s also telling that the decision comes the day after Morgan Stanley became the first US bank to file for a spot Bitcoin and Solana ETF. There’s no evidence that the two decisions were in any way linked, but it is worth noting that MSCI began life as part of Morgan Stanley before becoming an independent index provider.
“Regardless of the intention, it’s clear that DATs are no longer simply competing against each other – they’re competing in an established financial market that is finally seeing the value of digital assets. And this competition is going to get fierce.”
– Nic Puckrin, co-founder of the Coin Bureau
“The news that MSCI won’t exclude companies holding digital assets on their balance sheets is more important than it looks at first glance. Index decisions shape capital flows, full stop. MSCI is essentially signalilng that digital asset treasuries are no longer automatically viewed as reckless or off-limits.
“That matters for public companies trying to innovate without losing index inclusion, and for funds that track these benchmarks closely. Over time, this kind of stance can normalize responsible digital asset exposure, especially as governance, disclosure, and risk controls around treasuries continue to mature.”
– Marlon Williams, founder of DexTrader.ai
“MSCI’s decision not to exclude companies holding digital assets on their balance sheets is a quiet but meaningful signal. It basically says, look, bitcoin treasuries aren’t some fringe stunt anymore. If you’re a public company and you hold digital assets responsibly, you don’t get punished by default.
“That’s particularly important for funds tracking major indices. I’ve talked to portfolio managers who were worried this line would get drawn, and now it hasn’t. It doesn’t mean endorsement, but it does mean neutrality. And in finance, neutrality from index giants like MSCI can go a long way.”
– Hedy Wang, CEO and co-founder, Block Street
Senate’s compromise on stablecoin rewards in the crypto market structure bill
“The Senate’s compromise on stablecoin yield in the proposed amendments to the crypto market structure bill is a clear sign that the powers that be are committed to ensuring stablecoins remain attractive to end users, while placating banks that have lobbied heavily against such rewards. And this shows that stablecoins are systemically important to an America that is seeing the value of its currency rapidly eroded away.
“While the DXY index started the year on a high, it weakened again this week amid a new development in the spat between President Trump and Jerome Powell that once again raised the issue of the Fed’s independence. Down 9.7% over the past year, the greenback is projected to continue weakening in the foreseeable future by most strategists.
“Against this backdrop, it is then no wonder that stablecoins take on a strategic significance – they create a backdoor to strengthen the dollar, even as geopolitical or macro tensions shake its foundations. And if the market structure bill passes in its current form, the Senate can pat itself on the back for successfully keeping the door open for stablecoins to continue on their rapid growth trajectory.
“Whichever way the chips fall, though, it’s clear stablecoins will remain a competitor to bank deposits. Short of an outright ban on any form of rewards, there’s little that can stop this, and this is a new reality banks will have to reckon with. But once anti-stablecoin lobbying is off the table, traditional banks can start focusing on ways to compete with this innovation rather than undermine it. And this, as most competition does, will ultimately benefit customers through better incentives and rewards.
“However, given how little time there is between these latest proposals and the planned hearing on Thursday, I’m not holding my breath for the bill to pass this month. I wouldn’t be surprised to see further delays as committee members grapple with the implications of the proposed amendments. And any delays will weigh heavily on a digital asset market that has struggled with momentum for months.”
– Puckrin
“The recent Senate draft of the crypto market-structure bill represents a meaningful, if still evolving, attempt to balance innovation, consumer protection, and regulatory clarity in the United States. Based on early previews, the legislation would bar simple ‘sit-and-earn’ yields for stablecoin holders while allowing activity-based rewards tied to actions like payments, trading, or platform participation. This is an important distinction, and it reflects a compromise between concerns from traditional financial regulators and the realities of how crypto networks actually function.
“Just as importantly, the draft appears to include language designed to protect decentralized finance protocols and self-custody users, recognizing that open-source software and permissionless systems are fundamentally different from centralized intermediaries. That distinction matters. If developers or protocol operators are treated like banks or brokers simply because code exists, innovation in the United States will stall and migrate elsewhere.
“This bill is still unfinished, and the details around stablecoin rewards and developer liability will determine whether it truly supports responsible growth. The opportunity here is to draw a clear line between financial intermediation and infrastructure. If the final version preserves that separation while giving institutions a workable framework for stablecoins, it could become a durable foundation for the next phase of digital finance.”
– Sid Sridhar, founder and CEO of BIMA Labs
Ethereum v. Bitcoin
“Bitcoin tends to lead during periods of macro uncertainty because it’s treated as digital gold. But when markets move into a risk-on phase, investors typically look for assets tied to growth, adoption, and real usage, and that’s where Ethereum’s advantage becomes more visible.
“The choice isn’t binary. Bitcoin anchors portfolios during stress, while Ethereum provides upside optionality when markets price growth. The ETH-to-BTC relationship remains one of the clearest indicators of whether investors are prioritizing safety or opportunity.”
– Fei Chen, founder and CEO of Intellectia.ai
“Bitcoin breaking past $95,000 this week, the highest level since November 2025, reflects the growing demand as investors look for stability amid broader market volatility. This recognition of Bitcoin’s role as a safe‑haven asset has evolved alongside regulatory developments that are encouraging institutional participation. We’re seeing this optimism echoed in Bitcoin DeFi, as the total value locked of native Bitcoin deployed into DeFi has also made a steady recovery, holding steady above $7 billion for the first time since November.
“Despite this, most Bitcoin remains inactive today, with only around 0.3% engaged in native DeFi applications. By comparison, roughly 30% of Ethereum’s market value is actively used in DeFi. This dormant Bitcoin supply represents a massive opportunity for both retail and institutional users to put their BTC to work and unlock liquidity and yield-generating benefits. If Bitcoin reached similar levels to Ethereum, the market could grow from $7 billion to $700 billion.”
– Dom Harz, co-founder of BOB (Build on Bitcoin)