Strategy challenges MSCI proposal targeting digital asset treasury firms

Strategy has formally opposed MSCI’s proposed screening rules for companies with large non-operating asset holdings, arguing that the methodology unfairly targets digital asset treasury firms and could push companies including Strategy out of 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” and asked the index provider to withdraw it.

“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.

Strategy says MSCI proposal targets digital asset treasury firms

MSCI opened its latest consultation in August, proposing a new method for identifying companies whose balance sheets contain large amounts of assets it considers non-operating.

Companies whose operating assets account for less than 50% of total assets would face five additional financial-ratio tests under the proposed system. Triggering at least four of the five conditions could classify a company as non-operating and make it ineligible for the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes.

The methodology examines operating asset intensity, expenses, operating cash flow, fair value changes tied to assets considered non-operating and dependence on financing to accumulate those assets.

Strategy argued that the proposal effectively revives MSCI’s earlier attempt to address digital asset treasury companies through a different screening process. The company described the latest methodology as a “pretext” for targeting DATs and challenged MSCI’s distinction between operating and non-operating assets.

MSCI considered a separate framework last year that could have removed companies with digital assets accounting for 50% or more of their total assets. Following industry opposition, the index provider kept crypto treasury firms in its indexes in January while it prepared a new review covering companies with substantial non-operating assets, as crypto.news previously reported.

Strategy opposed that earlier proposal as well, arguing that holding a large amount of Bitcoin should not make an operating company equivalent to an investment fund.

The new framework has since expanded beyond a crypto-specific threshold, though Strategy maintains that its practical effect remains concentrated on digital asset treasury companies.

MSCI simulation puts Strategy and Metaplanet at risk

The possible impact became clearer when a simulation based on May 2026 data identified Strategy, Metaplanet and U.K.-listed uranium investment company Yellow Cake as companies that would face deletion under the proposed methodology.

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

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

Strategy challenged the basis of the screening process, saying MSCI’s use of “operating” and “non-operating” does not match established accounting definitions.

The company said neither U.S. generally accepted accounting principles nor International Financial Reporting Standards provides the distinction MSCI proposes to use. Strategy argued that existing U.S. securities law does not provide an equivalent test either.

Bitcoin is central to Strategy’s objection. MSCI treats the cryptocurrency on Strategy’s balance sheet as a non-operating asset, while Strategy reports its Bitcoin treasury as an operating segment.

According to the company, gains and losses related to its Bitcoin holdings are recorded as operating expenses following discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Strategy said MSCI would therefore be applying an index-level classification that differs from the accounting treatment used in its financial statements.

The company questioned why similar treatment would not apply to other businesses whose balance sheets contain large pools of assets. Its letter cited real estate investment trusts, timber businesses and energy infrastructure companies as examples of asset-heavy firms that could remain eligible under the proposed methodology.

Strategy argued that the difference would concentrate the effects of the test on digital asset treasury firms even though MSCI has presented the proposal as a company-wide screening framework.

Strategy wants MSCI to define its asset test

If MSCI proceeds with the proposal, Strategy asked the index provider to base any final methodology on recognized accounting or legal standards.

The company wants the rules applied only to financial filings released after the methodology has been finalized, preventing companies from being assessed retrospectively against a classification that did not exist when earlier filings were prepared.

Strategy requested a published record of the consultation process and asked MSCI to explain why the screening method is needed.

It wants the index provider to set objective criteria separating operating assets and activities from those considered non-operating, instead of relying on classifications that Strategy said lack established definitions.

The current dispute follows months of uncertainty over how major index providers should treat companies that use their balance sheets to hold Bitcoin and other digital assets.

When MSCI paused its earlier DATCO exclusion in January, Strategy shares rose as the immediate risk of removal from MSCI indexes eased.

The earlier debate had raised concerns about potential passive selling if companies were removed from benchmarks followed by index-tracking funds. JPMorgan estimated at the time that exclusion from MSCI indexes alone could lead to roughly $2.8 billion in selling of Strategy shares, with potential outflows reaching $8.8 billion if other index providers followed.

The estimate related to MSCI’s previous crypto-specific proposal and was not a forecast for the methodology currently under consultation.

MSCI is accepting comments on the latest proposal until Sept. 30 and plans to publish the outcome by Oct. 16. Any changes adopted following the consultation are expected to take effect in December.

Strategy continues building its Bitcoin position

The MSCI dispute comes as Strategy continues operating the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin treasury.

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

Its capital structure has changed considerably during 2026 as the company has balanced Bitcoin purchases with cash reserves, preferred dividends and share issuance.

In June, Strategy added another 520 Bitcoin for roughly $35 million at an average price of $67,068 per coin, taking its holdings at the time to 847,363 BTC. The same filing showed the company had increased its U.S. dollar reserve by $300 million to $1.4 billion.

Treasury activity later moved in the opposite direction as Strategy used Bitcoin sales and equity financing for capital management.

By late July, the company had begun directing proceeds from common-share issuance toward its dollar reserve instead of immediately using the funds for additional Bitcoin purchases. One weekly filing showed Strategy raised $544.5 million by selling nearly 5.43 million MSTR shares while making no Bitcoin purchase during that period.

The company said the cash reserve could be used to cover preferred dividend obligations and other corporate needs.

Strategy later resumed Bitcoin purchases, including the 4,603 BTC acquisition disclosed Monday, while MSCI’s consultation determines whether companies with balance sheets dominated by assets it classifies as non-operating should remain eligible for its global equity indexes.