Michael Saylor and Phong Le have formally opposed a proposed MSCI rule that could exclude Strategy and other digital asset treasury companies from major stock indexes, describing the plan as “misguided,” “arbitrary” and “discriminatory.”
In a letter published on August 31, Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and President and CEO Phong Le argued that MSCI’s latest consultation on so-called “non-operating companies” unfairly targets businesses that hold significant amounts of digital assets.
The dispute could have implications beyond Strategy. MSCI indexes are widely used by institutional investors and passive funds, meaning changes to index eligibility rules could affect the market access and shareholder base of companies that have adopted Bitcoin and other digital asset treasury strategies.
Strategy Urges MSCI to Withdraw the Proposal
Strategy publicly announced its opposition to the proposal on August 31.
The company said MSCI’s proposed exclusion for certain non-operating companies conflicts with established securities laws and accounting principles.
In their letter, Saylor and Le argued that the proposal should be withdrawn, stating that MSCI’s continued treatment of digital asset companies raises questions about the index provider’s neutrality.
Strategy’s central argument is that the proposed methodology creates a new framework that could disproportionately affect digital asset treasury companies.
The company said the proposal would have little direct effect on its underlying business but could damage MSCI’s reputation as a neutral and reliable index provider.
What Is MSCI’s New Proposal?
MSCI has opened a consultation examining whether certain companies with a low proportion of operating assets should face additional screening before being considered eligible for its Global Investable Market Indexes.
Under the proposed approach, companies whose operating assets represent less than 50% of total assets could be subject to further financial-ratio tests. Companies that trigger enough of those indicators could become ineligible for index inclusion.
The proposal is broader in wording than MSCI’s previous consultation focused specifically on digital asset treasury companies.
However, Strategy argues that the practical effect could still fall heavily on companies whose business models involve holding substantial amounts of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.
Why Strategy Says the Rule Targets Crypto Treasury Firms
Strategy described the proposal as a potential pretext for excluding digital asset treasury companies from major indexes.
The company argued that terms such as “operating” and “non-operating” do not have the clear definitions MSCI’s methodology appears to require under U.S. GAAP, IFRS or established securities-law tests.
Strategy also said its Bitcoin treasury activities are part of its operating business.
According to the company’s argument, Strategy reports its Bitcoin treasury operations as an operating segment and accounts for related Bitcoin fair-value gains and losses within operating expenses in its financial reporting.
The company therefore disputes the idea that its Bitcoin holdings should automatically be treated as “non-operating” assets for index eligibility purposes.
MSCI Previously Considered a Crypto-Specific Exclusion
The latest dispute follows an earlier MSCI consultation launched in 2025.
That proposal considered excluding companies whose digital asset holdings accounted for 50% or more of total assetsfrom MSCI’s Global Investable Market Indexes. MSCI’s earlier proposal was based partly on concerns that such companies could resemble investment funds, which are generally not eligible for certain benchmarks.
Following industry feedback, that earlier proposal was not implemented.
Strategy argues that MSCI’s new consultation effectively represents another attempt to reach a similar outcome through a different methodology.
Strategy Says Other Asset-Heavy Businesses Could Be Treated Differently
One of Strategy’s major objections is that the proposed screening could affect digital asset treasury companies differently from other businesses that also hold significant assets outside traditional operating activities.
The company argued that asset-heavy sectors, including certain real estate, timber and energy-related businesses, may not face the same practical impact as digital asset treasury firms.
Strategy says this raises concerns about whether the methodology is genuinely neutral.
The company has asked MSCI to clearly explain the distinction between operating and non-operating assets and activities using objective and established criteria.
Strategy, Metaplanet and Others Could Be Affected
MSCI’s own simulation of the proposed methodology, based on May 2026 data, identified several companies that could be affected.
According to recent reporting, the screen could result in the removal of:
- Strategy
- Metaplanet
- Yellow Cake
Other companies, including Ethereum-focused treasury firm SharpLink, could face additional monitoring under the proposed framework.
The inclusion of a uranium-focused company such as Yellow Cake also demonstrates that the proposal is not exclusively aimed at cryptocurrency businesses.
Nevertheless, Strategy argues that digital asset treasury companies would be among the most significantly affected businesses.
Why MSCI Index Inclusion Matters
Index inclusion can be important for publicly traded companies because large amounts of institutional capital are invested through index funds and exchange-traded funds.
When a company is removed from a widely followed benchmark, funds tracking that index may need to sell the stock as part of their portfolio rebalancing.
That could potentially affect:
- Institutional ownership
- Share liquidity
- Demand from passive investment funds
- Market visibility
- Stock price volatility
The exact financial impact of any future exclusion would depend on the specific index, the amount of capital tracking it and the actions taken by individual investment managers.
Strategy Says Exclusion Would Not Change Its Business
Despite its strong opposition, Strategy said that the proposed rule would not have a meaningful impact on its core business.
Instead, the company focused much of its criticism on what it sees as a broader issue of fairness and methodology.
Saylor and Le argued that adopting the proposal could harm MSCI’s standing as an objective index provider.
The company’s position is that index providers should use transparent and consistently applied rules rather than classifications that, in Strategy’s view, could disproportionately target a new category of public companies.
The Debate Highlights the Rise of Digital Asset Treasury Companies
The MSCI dispute reflects the rapid growth of the digital asset treasury company model.
These companies hold significant amounts of cryptocurrencies—often Bitcoin or Ethereum—as part of their corporate treasury strategy.
Strategy has become the most prominent example of the model after making Bitcoin accumulation a central part of its corporate strategy.
Other publicly traded companies around the world have since adopted similar approaches, holding Bitcoin, Ethereum and other digital assets on their balance sheets.
The growing number of such companies has created new questions for index providers, regulators and investors.
One major question is whether a company whose assets are largely concentrated in digital currencies should be treated primarily as an operating company or as an investment-like vehicle.
The Accounting Debate Is Central to Strategy’s Case
Strategy’s opposition also centers on accounting treatment.
The company argues that existing accounting and legal frameworks do not support MSCI’s proposed definitions of operating and non-operating assets in the way the consultation suggests.
According to Strategy, its Bitcoin treasury is not simply a passive investment unrelated to its business.
The company says it actively manages its digital asset strategy to create shareholder value and treats the related activities as part of its operations.
MSCI’s final methodology, if implemented, could therefore become an important test of how index providers classify companies with large digital asset holdings.
What Happens Next?
MSCI is accepting feedback on the consultation until September 30, 2026.
The index provider is expected to announce the outcome of the consultation in October, with potential changes expected to take effect later in 2026 if MSCI decides to proceed.
Strategy has asked MSCI to withdraw the proposal rather than move forward with the new screening framework.
The company has also called for greater transparency regarding the development of the proposed methodology and the criteria used to distinguish between operating and non-operating companies.
Could the Decision Affect the Wider Crypto Market?
The immediate proposal concerns stock index eligibility rather than cryptocurrency trading directly.
However, the decision could still have broader implications for the digital asset industry.
If major index providers begin excluding companies primarily because of large cryptocurrency holdings, digital asset treasury firms could face greater difficulty attracting passive institutional investment.
On the other hand, index providers may argue that their methodologies need to distinguish between traditional operating companies and businesses that function primarily as investment vehicles.
The debate therefore extends beyond Strategy and Bitcoin.
It could influence how public markets classify a growing category of companies whose value is increasingly connected to blockchain-based assets.
Strategy’s Letter Adds Pressure to the Consultation
The public opposition from Saylor and Le adds significant attention to MSCI’s consultation.
Strategy is one of the largest and most visible companies associated with corporate Bitcoin accumulation, making its response likely to be closely watched by other digital asset treasury firms.
The company has framed the issue as a question of equal treatment.
Strategy argues that a methodology should not create rules that effectively isolate digital asset companies without clear and consistently applied standards.
Whether MSCI accepts that argument remains uncertain.
Conclusion
Michael Saylor and Phong Le have formally urged MSCI to withdraw its proposed index eligibility rules, calling the plan misguided, arbitrary and discriminatory against digital asset treasury companies.
The proposal could subject companies with relatively low levels of operating assets to additional screening, potentially affecting major crypto treasury firms such as Strategy and Metaplanet.
Strategy argues that the methodology unfairly treats Bitcoin as a non-operating asset and lacks clear grounding in established accounting or securities-law definitions.
The dispute highlights a growing challenge for global financial markets: how should public companies holding large amounts of Bitcoin and other digital assets be classified?
With MSCI’s consultation still open, the outcome could become an important precedent for digital asset treasury companies and their access to institutional investment through major stock indexes.
Also Check: Brian Armstrong: Tokenized Assets Could Create New Finance Giants
