Saylor Challenges MSCI Rule Threatening Bitcoin Treasury Companies

Bitcoin treasury companies face a new debate around inclusion criteria in major indices. Saylor and Strategy contest an MSCI proposal targeting certain companies considered nonoperational. The group believes this filter could exclude several digital asset-related stocks. However, the cost of this decision goes beyond the companies concerned, as billions of dollars in capital could be affected. The MSCI consultation remains open until September 30 before a decision is expected in October.

Michael Saylor challenges the principle of the proposed filter

Michael Saylor and Phong Le, founder and CEO of Strategy, sent a letter to MSCI. The two leaders ask the index provider to withdraw its eligibility test. According to them, this rule is “discriminatory, arbitrary, and misguided.” They especially believe it targets companies that have adopted a treasury strategy in digital assets.

The proposal concerns so-called “non-operational” companies in MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes. MSCI plans a review when operational assets represent less than half of total assets. The evaluation covers assets, expenses, cash flows, fair value, and external financing. Four failures make a company ineligible, while an existing company must fail twice before removal.

Strategy does not fit this definition according to the letter. In its Q2 report, filed on August 3, Strategy presents its Bitcoin treasury as an operational segment. The company also accounts for Bitcoin fair value changes in its operating expenses. This accounting treatment should therefore not fall under the filter categories. The cost of this classification remains at the heart of the disagreement.

The MSCI filter threatens several Bitcoin stocks

According to MSCI, applying the filter to the ACWI IMI index could remove three stocks. Strategy is among them, with a float-adjusted market capitalization of $23.93 billion. Yellow Cake reports $1.81 billion, while Metaplanet reaches $654 million. These three companies would be affected by the upcoming review.

Three other companies would come under public watch. SharpLink, which holds an Ethereum treasury, is on this list. Center Laboratories and Lydia Holding complete the group. In his letter, Saylor points out that Strategy accounts for about 87% of the float-adjusted market capitalization of the six companies.

The financial stake could therefore exceed the removal of a few stocks. Funds tracking the GIMI indices represent 3.1% of core shares. JPMorgan analysts estimated in November 2025 that Strategy’s exclusion could result in $2.8 billion in capital outflows. This figure could reach $11.6 billion if other providers adopt a similar approach.

MSCI under pressure before its decision on crypto companies

Saylor and Le state that the proposal would not significantly impact Strategy’s operations. However, they believe it could affect MSCI’s reputation as a neutral index provider. Their position echoes an argument made in December when the leaders warned that excluding crypto treasury companies could harm U.S. national security.

The letter finally asks MSCI to legally block all documents related to the development of the test. The consultation still follows its schedule. Stakeholders have until September 30 to submit their comments. MSCI plans its results on October 16, before a possible revision in November.

The case enters a decisive phase for strategy. Saylor seeks to maintain their access to indices, while MSCI continues its review of non-operational companies. The potential cost depends mainly on the capital flows involved. The decision will depend on comments and the application retained by MSCI.

Three steps remain set: comments until September 30, results on October 16, and then possible revision in November. Strategy will have to wait for the conclusion of the procedure. The real cost will then depend on its application and the reaction of other index providers.