An in-depth look at why the proposed delay sits so awkwardly within the law-based benchmark and what the best way forward might look like.
JPX Market Innovation & Research (JPXI) is considering a new law that would delay companies whose main assets are cryptoassets from TOPIX and other indicators that are reviewed from time to time. The idea is measured by tone, and the main concern, how to deal with the group that has just come out, is something that every indexer should think about.
But the direct rule under discussion raises specific questions. It would affect companies such as Metaplanet, Remixpoint, and ANAP Holdings, along with a growing group of Japanese providers whose businesses are legal, regulated, and fully compatible with long-established financial systems.
Here are seven reasons why JPXI should reconsider this proposal before February 2026.
1. Law Doesn’t Measure What TOPIX Usually Measures
TOPIX is designed to serve as a broad, neutral, investment strategy for the Japanese equity market. Its strategy also includes the following tools: currency indicators, free market capitalization strategies, continuous buffers, and support based on listings and other brand events.
A crypto-asset hedge is another type of experiment. It does not measure liquidity, free float, trading value, market capitalization, or chart type. Instead it looks at the company’s capital structure.
That’s a significant departure from the way TOPIX eligibility has worked historically, and it needs to be more clearly justified than the current discussion provides. If a company meets the general requirements of TOPIX, the suspension due to one financial group leads to a new decision in a method that has been widely appreciated for its accuracy.
2. “Principal Asset Is Cryptoassets” Needs a Clear Definition
The discussion refers to companies whose “main assets are cryptoassets,” but leaves a few leading questions:
- Is the test based on parent holdings or consolidated holdings?
- Would transparency through all of its subsidiaries, affiliates, or technology divisions work?
- Would direct exposure through securities, derivatives, or similar financial instruments be affected?
- Is the inquiry legal (direct legal subject) or formal (financial exposure)?
This is not difficult at all. They determine the companies to which the law applies. The policy gets its credibility from rules that are objective, measurable, and always controlled, and a clear definition can help everyone: donors, investors, and JPXI itself.
3. This Law Can Be Easier to Work Than to Use
A practical concern follows on the question of interpretation. If the interest in Bitcoin and the parent company is not preferred, but the exposure of the same through other products is not, the law is concerned with the law and not the economy.
Consider the asymmetry:
- Direct Bitcoin sites can trigger this rule
- A position in the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) probably won’t
- A position in the Bitcoin miner list probably won’t
- Interest in a crypto-linked company may not be
The financial exposure to these events can be very similar. Index treatment can be very different. This provides an incentive for issuers to reorganize their transparency rather than disclose their balance sheet. Symbolic law often works best when it encourages clarity rather than contradiction.
4. Painting Existing Areas Creates Internal Conflict
The discussion seeks to delay new integration while not applying the law to existing communities. This makes sense from a static point of view, no one wants unnecessary index churn.
But it also creates an internal conflict in legal theory. If the transparency of the Bitcoin economy was completely unrelated to TOPIX, it would be difficult to justify releasing existing members. And if it is not contradictory, it is better to ask why the new entrants meet the same investability principles should be treated differently.
Reconciliation that asymmetry can strengthen the idea even more.
5. “For the Time” Leaves the Time Count Open
The discussion says that the delay will work “for the time being,” without specifying the time of sunrise, sunrise, or sunset. In fact, this leaves time open.
Time is of the essence here. October 2026 will be the first periodic review under the next-generation TOPIX system where Standard and Growth market companies can qualify through the new system. Deferrals related to these assessments, without a clear path back to eligibility, can operate as long-term exclusions even if they are not designed that way.
A clear view, or a clear sunset, can make the idea easier to see clearly.
6. Friends Around the World Take Too Much Time on One Question
JPXI is not the only one thinking about this. The value of the MSCI recently they saw it as a way to manage the digital economy and in the end they did not take exception, acknowledging the need for more work to distinguish companies that work and those that do not work or as money. FTSE Russell has not announced a similar policy.
A common point is that the class question is not really established. The working companies that handle Bitcoin together with other businesses: media, energy, trade, mining, construction, do not fit well with the existing groups, and the international community is still looking at how to think about it.
With this in mind, there is good reason for JPXI to re-engage with issuers and market participants before writing a rule, rather than moving forward when the negotiations are at an impasse.
7. A Neutral System Can Be Very Strong
If the concern is that some of the listed companies are too concentrated or like money, then this concern needs to be addressed, but not only cryptoassets. Fixed assets can take many forms: listed stocks, shares of a private company, financial interests, real estate, or other passive assets.
A system that works consistently across these groups may be stronger than a single-factor system. It can also avoid the interpretation and criticism of the above, because the test will focus on the financial assets that JPXI cares about instead of a single financial group.
There are several ways to do this:
- Additional disclosure standards for a stable financial position of any kind, giving investors clarity without changing the index’s structure
- A neutral setting which applies the same test to any non-functional properties above the specified threshold
- Index of choice for investors who want to be exposed to the Japanese market and the rich cryptoasset companies are not included, offered together with, and not instead of, the general token.
Where This Has Left the Mind
None of this is to say that JPXI’s instinct to think critically about a new group of contributors is wrong. It is not. Bitcoin economy companies are new, and their popularity in Japan has grown so quickly that questions about how to deal with them are worth considering.
But the actual law of inquiry is narrower, more vague, and more open-ended than the questions it is trying to answer. A clear definition, a well-known light period, and Indiscriminate positioning can go a long way by addressing the challenges within and maintaining what has made TOPIX a trusted brand: objective, regulatory-based competence that reflects the Japanese market as it is.
That combination, things in the form, clarity, neutrality in the groups of things, seems like a strong way forward.
Add Your Signature
Bitcoin For Corporations has prepared a letter of agreement urging JPXI to withdraw its proposal and maintain TOPIX as a neutral, rules-based token. The public comment period is ending May 7, 2026 and each signature reinforces the case that this issue is important to donors, investors, and market participants around the world.
If the arguments above make sense, add your name. Individuals and organizations from all over the world can sign up.
→ Sign the contract at topix.bitcoinforcorporations.com
You can review the entire newsletter, see who has already signed, and share the campaign with your network on the same page. The deadline is fixed, and the window for making the final JPXI decision is short.
Disclaimer: This was prepared in lieu of Bitcoin For Business only for details. It reflects the author’s analysis and opinion and should not be relied upon as financial advice. Nothing contained in this article shall constitute an offer, invitation, or solicitation to buy, sell, or subscribe to receive any security or financial product.
