Strategy Pushes Back as MSCI Weighs Index Rules for Bitcoin Treasury Firms

Strategy is challenging a proposed MSCI screening framework that could remove companies with large non-operating asset holdings from major global equity indexes.

In a Monday letter signed by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and CEO Phong Le, Strategy called MSCI’s proposal “discriminatory, arbitrary, and misguided.” The company asked the index provider to withdraw the plan, arguing that it unfairly targets digital asset treasury companies while presenting itself as a broader methodology change.

“If adopted, the proposal would have no meaningful impact on Strategy’s business, but it would profoundly harm MSCI’s reputation as a reliable and neutral index provider,” Strategy wrote.

The dispute matters because Strategy is the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holder and a major component of several equity benchmarks. Removal from MSCI indexes could trigger passive selling by index-tracking funds, even if it does not change Strategy’s underlying business.

What MSCI Is Proposing

MSCI opened its latest consultation in August. The proposed rules would identify companies whose balance sheets contain large amounts of assets that MSCI considers non-operating.

Under the framework, companies whose operating assets account for less than 50% of total assets would face five additional financial-ratio tests. If a company fails at least four of the five, it could be classified as non-operating and become ineligible for the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes.

The tests examine operating asset intensity, expenses, operating cash flow, fair value changes tied to assets considered non-operating and reliance on financing to accumulate those assets.

MSCI has framed the proposal as a general screen for companies whose equity characteristics may resemble investment vehicles more than operating businesses. Strategy argues that the practical effect is much narrower: it would hit digital asset treasury firms hardest.

Strategy Says the Test Targets DATs

Strategy says the proposal is a revised version of MSCI’s earlier attempt to address digital asset treasury companies.

Last year, MSCI considered a crypto-specific framework that could have removed companies whose digital assets accounted for 50% or more of total assets. After industry pushback, MSCI kept crypto treasury firms in its indexes in January while preparing a broader review of companies with substantial non-operating assets.

Strategy opposed the earlier proposal as well. Its central argument has not changed: holding a large Bitcoin treasury should not automatically make an operating company equivalent to an investment fund.

The new proposal no longer uses a direct crypto threshold, but Strategy says the result is similar. Companies with large digital asset treasuries are still the most likely to be caught by the screen.

The Simulation Shows Who Is at Risk

A simulation based on May 2026 data identified Strategy, Metaplanet and U.K.-listed uranium investment company Yellow Cake as companies that could face deletion under the proposed methodology.

The simulation listed Strategy with a free-float-adjusted market capitalization of $23.93 billion. Yellow Cake stood at $1.81 billion, while Metaplanet was listed at $654 million.

SharpLink, Center Laboratories and Lydia Holding were placed on a watchlist. MSCI proposes different treatment for existing index constituents: current members would need to fail the applicable screening test in two consecutive annual reviews before removal.

That staged process may reduce immediate disruption, but it does not remove the risk. If the methodology is adopted, Strategy and similar companies could face a recurring index eligibility overhang.

The Accounting Dispute Is Central

Strategy’s strongest objection is definitional.

The company argues that MSCI’s distinction between “operating” and “non-operating” assets is not grounded in U.S. GAAP, IFRS or existing U.S. securities law. In its view, MSCI is creating a classification that does not match how companies report their financial statements.

Bitcoin is the key issue.

MSCI treats Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings as non-operating assets. Strategy reports its Bitcoin treasury as an operating segment. The company says gains and losses tied to its Bitcoin holdings are recorded as operating expenses following discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

That creates a direct conflict. Strategy says MSCI would be applying an index-level classification that differs from the accounting treatment used in the company’s own filings.

Strategy also questions why other asset-heavy businesses would not face similar treatment. Its letter cited real estate investment trusts, timber businesses and energy infrastructure companies as examples of companies whose balance sheets may be dominated by assets but remain eligible for equity indexes.

The company’s argument is that MSCI is not applying a neutral asset-heavy-company test. It is applying a test that falls most heavily on digital asset treasury firms.

What Strategy Wants From MSCI

Strategy asked MSCI to withdraw the proposal. If MSCI moves forward, Strategy wants the final rules tied to recognized accounting or legal standards.

The company also requested that any methodology apply only to financial filings released after the rules are finalized. That would prevent companies from being assessed retroactively against a classification system that did not exist when earlier filings were prepared.

Strategy also asked MSCI to publish a record of the consultation process and explain why the screening method is necessary.

More broadly, it wants objective criteria separating operating assets and activities from those MSCI views as non-operating. Without that, Strategy argues, the methodology gives the index provider too much discretion and creates uncertainty for companies whose business models sit outside traditional categories.

Why Index Removal Matters

Index eligibility can affect a stock even when the underlying business is unchanged.

If Strategy were removed from MSCI indexes, funds that track those benchmarks could be forced to sell shares. That risk was already visible during MSCI’s earlier crypto-specific review.

At the time, JPMorgan estimated that exclusion from MSCI indexes alone could lead to about $2.8 billion in selling of Strategy shares. If other index providers followed, potential outflows could reach $8.8 billion.

Those estimates related to MSCI’s previous proposal, not the current consultation. Still, they show why Strategy is taking the issue seriously.

The company says index removal would not change its operating model or Bitcoin strategy. But it could change the shareholder base, stock liquidity and valuation multiple.

The Fight Comes as Strategy Resumes Bitcoin Buying

The MSCI dispute comes as Strategy continues to build and manage the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin treasury.

On Monday, Strategy shares rose 4.42% to close at $132.94. The same day, the company disclosed that it purchased 4,603 BTC during the previous week at an average price of $80,318 per Bitcoin.

The purchase marked a return to accumulation after a period in which Strategy had focused more heavily on capital management.

Its balance sheet has changed meaningfully during 2026. In June, Strategy added 520 BTC for about $35 million at an average price of $67,068. At the time, its holdings reached 847,363 BTC, while its U.S. dollar reserve increased by $300 million to $1.4 billion.

By late July, the company had begun directing proceeds from common-share issuance toward its dollar reserve rather than immediately buying more Bitcoin. One weekly filing showed Strategy raised $544.5 million by selling nearly 5.43 million MSTR shares while making no Bitcoin purchase that week.

The company said its cash reserve could be used for preferred dividend obligations and other corporate needs.

Strategy has since resumed Bitcoin purchases, including the 4,603 BTC acquisition disclosed Monday.

The Larger Question for Bitcoin Treasury Firms

MSCI’s consultation is about more than Strategy.

The rise of digital asset treasury companies has created a classification problem for index providers. These companies trade as public equities, but their market value can be heavily tied to crypto holdings rather than traditional operating assets.

MSCI appears to be asking whether such companies belong in broad equity indexes. Strategy’s answer is that they do, as long as they are operating companies with audited financial statements, public disclosures and shareholders exposed to business execution as well as treasury assets.

The outcome will help define how public markets treat companies built around large Bitcoin and digital asset balance sheets.

MSCI is accepting comments until Sept. 30 and plans to publish its decision by Oct. 16. Any adopted changes are expected to take effect in December.

For Strategy, the immediate business impact may be limited. The company can keep buying, holding and managing Bitcoin regardless of MSCI’s decision.

For the stock, the stakes are higher. Index treatment could determine whether Strategy remains a mainstream equity benchmark constituent or is increasingly treated as a publicly listed proxy for Bitcoin exposure.