Microsoft Rejects Bitcoin Integration : Shareholders Decide

For years, bitcoin has established itself as a central topic in economic and financial debates, deeply dividing opinions. For its proponents, it represents a monetary revolution capable of redefining the rules of the global financial system. Conversely, its detractors criticize its volatility and the risks it entails, deeming it incompatible with prudent investment strategies. Indeed, Microsoft has added a new chapter to this controversy. During its annual meeting, the company’s shareholders rejected an ambitious proposal aimed at including bitcoin in the cash reserves of the tech giant. This decision, made against a backdrop of particularly unstable financial markets, raises questions about the role of cryptos in the asset management strategies of large corporations. Between opportunities for diversification and caution in the face of uncertainty, the debate intensifies and reflects much broader stakes for the future of cryptos in the global economy.

A Reasoned Rejection : Microsoft Shareholders Say “No”

On December 10, during its annual meeting, Microsoft examined a bold proposal submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a think tank based in Washington. This resolution suggested investing between 1 % and 5 % of the company’s profits in bitcoin. The stated objective was clear: to diversify Microsoft’s assets and offer shareholders an opportunity for valuation, while preparing the company to embrace what crypto proponents call the “next technological wave”.

To support this initiative, the NCPPR prepared a video presented during the meeting. It opened with an important statement: “Microsoft cannot afford to miss the next technological wave, and bitcoin is that wave.” Through graphs and projections, the think tank asserted that this strategy could generate trillions of dollars in value for the company, while reducing risks associated with inflation and the devaluation of traditional assets. Despite these arguments, Microsoft’s board of directors firmly opposed the proposal, highlighting the limitations and dangers associated with such an investment.

In a document submitted to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), the board justified its rejection by citing the extreme volatility of cryptos. “Investments in crypto require a stability and predictability that our corporate treasury cannot guarantee,” it clarified. It emphasized the importance of maintaining liquidity appropriate to operational needs. Following this recommendation, the majority of shareholders ultimately rejected the proposal, thus reinforcing Microsoft’s cautious position regarding the adoption of cryptos.

Divergent Perspectives for Companies and Bitcoin

The rejection of this proposal by Microsoft goes beyond a mere isolated decision. It reflects a deeper debate that runs through the business world. Some companies, like MicroStrategy, have chosen a radically different path through the massive integration of bitcoin into their financial statements. Michael Saylor, CEO of MicroStrategy and a strong advocate for crypto, attempted to convince Microsoft’s board. He claimed that such a strategy could “add nearly $5 trillion to the company’s market capitalization.” However, despite his arguments in favor of the unique opportunity that massive adoption would represent, this bold vision did not find a favorable response.

This conservative choice by Microsoft fits into a trend shared by other large companies. Amazon, for instance, received a similar proposal from the NCPPR. Although the resolution was not immediately rejected, the e-commerce giant postponed its decision until April 2025, indicating a cautious attitude towards cryptos. This restraint reflects widespread concerns related to the volatility of these assets, as well as companies’ desire to maintain the stability of their liquidity in an economic context marked by uncertainty and fluctuations in global markets.

Microsoft’s decision to reject the integration of bitcoin into its reserves illustrates a strategic choice that could influence other large enterprises. This refusal shines a light on a growing divide between bold players, willing to bet on the innovation of cryptos, and those who prioritize stability in the face of economic uncertainties. The question remains: will bitcoin become a cornerstone of investment strategies or remain an opportunity reserved for a few pioneers? In a world where technological innovation and financial risks intertwine, this debate is far from over. Bitcoin, for its part, continues to defy expectations and seeks to establish its legitimacy in the global economy.