FinTwit Trädoors

The only thing a Strategy bankruptcy will restore is the truth: Saylor wasn't a visionary, he was a gambler who used shareholder money to buy a 4.5 TPS settlement layer and called it a "treasury strategy." "Beneficial" like a house fire is beneficial for the fire department?

RT @btcefe: This is the influencer you coretards deserve 👍

Saylor posting bilingual videos. 🇯🇵 🇩🇪 🇪🇸 Metaplanet “expanding” markets. 🇯🇵 This is like when you’ve scammed everyone in town and you need to move cities and hope nobody knows you were a scammer back home. When they say “access to deeper and more liquid capital markets” it’s code for, a bigger bunch of fools. I’d argue this is proof of a broken model. “When Bitcoin pumps though!?” Yes, when you have forward momentum, you go up. That’s like a car moving forward from rolling down hill, or sailing down wind.

How is it acceptable for a public company chairman to tour media outlets claiming "the 4-year cycle is dead" and "Bitcoin winter is never coming back" while actively running aggressive ATM equity dilution into retail at $400? That father invested his kids' future because management sold the illusion of an infinite up-only machine. Pumping false certainty while diluting common equity into a 70%+ collapse is borderline predatory. What a shameless corporate grifter.

"Sorry $MSTR share-holder ... but WE needed your money for a PONZI-FRAUD"! and for ourselfes for a new - villa - yacht - aeroplane (ok, leasing but OURs) ... and WE have never heared from your "kids"! This is MINE ... and what`s your net-worth?

Paper Bitcoin ruined Bitcoin.

Saylor, probably: "Hey ChatGPT, it's me again lol how do I screw over as many shareholders as possible lmao"

NEW: Bitcoin is going to zero, according to World Gold Council CEO David Tait.

With -$24.45 loss per share $MSTR may become more undervalued

MSCI PROPOSES RULES THAT WOULD REMOVE STRATEGY FROM ITS INDEXES MSCI has proposed new rules targeting “non-operating companies” that, based on its May 2026 simulation, would result in $MSTR being removed from its Global Investable Market Indexes. Strategy is specifically named alongside Metaplanet and Yellow Cake as the only three simulated deletions from the MSCI ACWI IMI. The proposed methodology screens companies based on operating assets, expenses and cash flow, non-operating fair-value changes, and dependence on raising capital to accumulate assets. That last criterion directly targets Strategy’s model of issuing equity and debt to accumulate Bitcoin. This is NOT final. Consultation closes September 30, with MSCI’s decision expected by October 16 and potential implementation during the November 2026 Index Review.

Perhaps this is why Saylor has been stacking so much cash. Unlike every other bearish narrative thrown at $MSTR, MSCI exclusion is the one that actually forces shares into the market. I'm not too bothered about it because like I said, Strategy will be fine in the end. $4.65bn in USD reserves gives them options. Buybacks of the common is possible if mNAV falls below 1 and they now have the firepower to absorb some of the supply if they choose to. Add a rising Bitcoin price and the pressure looks a lot more manageable. Just something to think about.

LATEST: 📊 MSCI has proposed excluding "non-operating companies" from its major global indexes, implementing new criteria that would likely result in the removal of Strategy and Metaplanet.

𝗠𝗦𝗖𝗜'𝗦 𝗔𝗨𝗚𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗡 𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗦 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗬 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 — 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗝𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗔𝗥𝗬 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗡𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥 𝗔𝗡 𝗔𝗟𝗟-𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗥 Three index families are asking three different questions about the same company, and only one of them has a date attached. On 6 January 2026, MSCI decided not to exclude digital asset treasury companies from its Global Investable Market Indexes. Strategy called it a strong outcome for neutral indexing. The stock rose about 6 percent after hours. In August 2026, MSCI published the consultation it had promised the same day, applied the proposed screen to its own index, and printed a list of three companies that would be deleted. Strategy is the first name on it. Both of those things happened. The second follows from the first more directly than the January coverage suggested. 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗠𝗦𝗖𝗜 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗗 𝗢𝗡 𝟲 𝗝𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗔𝗥𝗬 The headline was accurate: MSCI would not implement the proposal to exclude companies whose digital assets make up 50 percent or more of total assets, and Strategy would stay in the benchmarks for the February 2026 review. Two other elements of the same announcement drew less attention. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. MSCI said it intended to open a broader review of non-operating companies generally, noting that distinguishing investment companies from operating companies holding non-operating assets required further research. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀. Through the February and May 2026 reviews, MSCI continued to withhold increases to share count and inclusion factors for these companies, and deferred additions and size-segment migrations. For a company that funds bitcoin purchases by issuing equity, that second point is not a technicality. New shares could no longer translate into new index weight. The position was frozen rather than confirmed. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗨𝗚𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗡 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗜𝗧𝗦 𝗙𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗦 The consultation was published this month, with feedback open until 30 September 2026. It abandons the crypto-specific threshold entirely. There is no digital-asset criterion in the proposal. In its place, a two-step test applied across all industries. The core screen asks whether operating assets exceed 50 percent of total assets. An issuer that passes is eligible and the matter ends there. An issuer that fails is measured against five financial ratios: • Operating asset intensity • Expense intensity • Operating cash flow • Fair value intensity • Capital dependence Four flags out of five and the issuer is ineligible for index inclusion. The stated logic is that such companies create value by accumulating and holding non-operating assets, generate little cash from running a business, and rely on external capital rather than their own operations to grow. 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗬 𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗖𝗢𝗟𝗨𝗠𝗡, 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗧 MSCI applied the proposed screen to the ACWI IMI as of May 2026 and published what would happen. Three deletions: • Strategy, United States, large cap, $23,931 million float-adjusted market cap • Yellow Cake, United Kingdom, small cap, $1,807 million • Metaplanet, Japan, small cap, $654 million Three further companies would be placed on a new public watchlist: Center Laboratories, Lydia Holding and SharpLink. Strategy is not among them. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀. Existing index constituents are treated more gently than newcomers by design. They face looser ratio thresholds, and they are removed only after failing in two consecutive annual filings rather than one. Strategy lands in the deletion column under those softened terms. That implies it fails the screens twice, at the buffered thresholds built to prevent exactly that outcome for existing members. MSCI does not state this in those words; it is what the deletion column and the buffer rule together mean. 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗠𝗦𝗖𝗜 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧 In December 2025, Saylor and CEO Phong Le wrote to the MSCI Equity Index Committee arguing that treasury companies are operating companies rather than investment funds, and that a digital-asset-specific 50 percent threshold was arbitrary, discriminatory and unworkable. The August proposal concedes that principle. There is no crypto threshold in it. The screens are industry-neutral, and the illustrative deletion list bears that out: a uranium holding company sits next to the bitcoin treasuries, and a Turkish holding company sits on the watchlist. Whatever else the proposal does, it is not a rule aimed at one asset class. That is also what makes it harder to argue with than its predecessor. 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗔 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗖𝗢𝗦𝗧, 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗘𝗢𝗣𝗟𝗘 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗣𝗨𝗧 𝗔 𝗡𝗨𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗧 Index deletion is not a judgement about a business. It is an instruction to a category of buyer that does not exercise judgement. A fund tracking MSCI World holds Strategy because MSCI World holds Strategy. Remove the constituent and the fund sells, on the effective date, at whatever the market offers. That makes the mechanical part quantifiable, and several parties have quantified it. 𝗝𝗣𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻, 𝟮𝟬 𝗡𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱. Roughly $2.8 billion in passive outflows if MSCI alone removes the company, and as much as $8.8 billion if other index providers follow. The analysts put approximately $9 billion of Strategy's market value in passive index-tracking vehicles at the time. 𝗝𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝟭𝟮 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱. For the separate Nasdaq-100 track, Kaasha Saini, head of index strategy at the firm, estimated roughly $1.6 billion in passive outflows on removal. 𝗝𝗣𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻, 𝟰 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱. The same bank then argued that the exclusion risk was already reflected in the share price, and that the MSCI ruling could act as a catalyst rather than a shock. The stock had fallen roughly 20 percent since the earlier note. Two notes, two weeks apart, one bank, opposite conclusions. That is not a contradiction to explain away. It is the state of the question: the size of the forced selling is calculable, and the price impact of that selling is not. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗨𝗥𝗘𝗗 𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗔 𝗣𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗝𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗔𝗥𝗬 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 On 6 January 2026 MSCI announced it would not proceed. The stock rose about 6 percent after hours, on a day with no other company news. That is the market pricing index risk in reverse, and it is the only clean observation available. It says the removal scenario was worth something in the single-digit percentage range at that moment, against a market capitalisation then in the $50 billion range. Set beside a $2.8 billion outflow estimate, the two do not obviously reconcile. Three readings fit. The outflow estimate may overstate what actually has to trade. The January move may have been dampened because the announcement deferred rather than settled the question. Or the risk was already largely in the price, which is what JPMorgan argued in December. Nothing in the published record distinguishes between them. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗖𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗬 𝗡𝗢 𝗡𝗨𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥 The mechanical outflow is the part that can be estimated. The rest cannot. • Liquidity. Passive ownership is permanent ownership. Replacing it with discretionary holders thins the book and widens spreads, which raises the cost of every subsequent trade. • Access to capital. The business model funds bitcoin purchases by issuing equity. That requires a buyer base, and index membership is part of what supplies one. • The weight is already frozen. Through the February and May 2026 reviews MSCI withheld increases to share count and inclusion factors, so part of the effect a deletion would produce is already in force. • Signalling. Both banks noted that removal would be read as a verdict on the structure, independently of the shares that change hands. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴. A company that issues equity to buy bitcoin depends on its shares trading well enough to make issuance worthwhile. Index deletion pressures the shares. Pressured shares make issuance more expensive. That is a loop, not a one-off adjustment, and no published estimate covers it. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦&𝗣 𝟱𝟬𝟬 𝗥𝗨𝗡𝗦 𝗢𝗡 𝗔 𝗗𝗜𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗧𝗘𝗦𝗧 — 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗥𝗨𝗟𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗦 𝗜𝗧 The second track has nothing to do with asset composition. It turns on earnings, and since January 2025 those earnings have been a function of the bitcoin price. FASB ASU 2023-08, codified as ASC 350-60, took effect for calendar-year public companies on 1 January 2025. Bitcoin is measured at fair value each quarter and the change flows through net income. It replaced a worse rule. Under the old impairment model bitcoin could be written down but never written back up, which at one point left Strategy carrying coins below $16,000 while the market traded above $94,000. The new standard fixes that. 𝗦𝘆𝗺𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝘆. It also means a company holding 843,775 bitcoin reports a quarterly result dominated by a number nobody at the company controls, in both directions. 𝗦𝗘𝗣𝗧𝗘𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱: 𝗤𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗘𝗗 𝗢𝗡 𝗣𝗔𝗣𝗘𝗥, 𝗥𝗘𝗝𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗕𝗬 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗘 In Q2 2025 Strategy reported net income of $10.02 billion and diluted EPS of $32.52. Quarterly revenue was $114.5 million. Those two figures belong to different orders of magnitude, and the gap between them is the mark. It cleared the last outstanding S&P 500 requirement: positive earnings in the most recent quarter and positive earnings summed across the trailing four. US listing, market capitalisation, float and trading volume had been satisfied for some time. At the September 2025 rebalance, the index committee declined to add the company. The criteria are arithmetic. Admission is discretion, and the committee used it. The same rule ran the other way this year: • Net loss: $8.22 billion • Net loss attributable to common stockholders: $8.62 billion • Diluted EPS: -$24.45 • Unrealised markdown on digital assets: $8.32 billion • Revenue: $122.4 million, up 6.9 percent year on year • Gross margin: 66.6 percent The two loss figures differ by the preferred dividend obligation, and the per-share number is calculated off the second one. Bitcoin ended the quarter near $58,700 against a blended average acquisition cost of roughly $75,476 across 843,775 coins. 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗮𝘆. No bitcoin was sold to produce it; the markdown is unrealised. Bitcoin was sold in the period for a different reason. Strategy disposed of 3,588 coins for $218.4 million, the first sale in about four years, to fund dividends on its preferred stock, and authorised a programme allowing up to $1.25 billion in further sales. That detail belongs in any account of the index question. A company selling the asset it accumulates in order to service its capital structure is evidence in the same argument MSCI is running. Set the two years side by side. Revenue rose. Margin held. Reported earnings swung by more than $18 billion. An index criterion designed to measure whether a company earns money is, in this case, measuring where bitcoin closed on the last day of the quarter. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗗𝗔𝗤-𝟭𝟬𝟬 𝗞𝗘𝗣𝗧 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗬 𝗜𝗡 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗘𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 The third track went the other way. Strategy survived the December 2025 annual reconstitution, effective 22 December, in a reshuffle that dropped six companies and added six. Kaasha Saini, head of index strategy at Jefferies, had estimated roughly $1.6 billion in passive outflow if the stock were removed. The next annual reconstitution falls in December 2026. 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗗 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗙𝗧𝗦𝗘 𝗥𝗨𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗟𝗟 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗦&𝗣 𝗗𝗢𝗪 𝗝𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦 Neither index family appears to have published a comparable proceeding on digital asset treasury companies. No consultation document, no proposed screen, no announced review turned up. That is a statement about what the search returned, not about what either provider intends. Absence of a published document is not evidence of a settled position, and this is the weakest part of the picture. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 • 30 September 2026 — MSCI consultation feedback closes • 16 October 2026 — MSCI expects to announce the result • November 2026 — proposed implementation in the index review • December 2026 — next Nasdaq-100 annual reconstitution • Quarterly — S&P 500 eligibility recalculates with each earnings release, which means with each quarter-end bitcoin price The last line is the one worth sitting with. For a company whose reported earnings are a function of one asset's quarterly close, eligibility under an earnings test is not a business outcome. It is a price outcome with a filing attached. MSCI states that its consultation may or may not result in changes. Nothing here is decided. 𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 • MSCI, Consultation on Eligibility of Non-Operating Companies for the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes, August 2026 • MSCI, index announcement on digital asset treasury companies, 6 January 2026 • MSCI, Index Rebalance Factsheet, February 2026 review • Strategy Inc, Q2 2026 earnings release and earnings call, 30 July 2026 • Strategy Inc, response to the MSCI consultation, strategy.com/msci, 10 December 2025 • Prakhar Srivastava, Reuters, 6 January 2026 • JPMorgan equity research note, 20 November 2025, cited in CoinDesk and The Block • JPMorgan equity research note, 4 December 2025, index-exclusion risk priced in • Kaasha Saini, Jefferies, passive outflow estimate, cited by Reuters, 12 December 2025 • Nasdaq, annual reconstitution announcement, December 2025, effective 22 December 2025 • FASB, Accounting Standards Update 2023-08 (ASC 350-60), effective 1 January 2025 As of 13 August 2026. The MSCI consultation is open and its outcome is not determined. Strategy's S&P 500 eligibility recalculates each quarter and can reverse with the bitcoin price. Bitcoin holdings and average cost are as reported in the Q2 2026 release; figures are from the filings and documents listed above, on the dates given. Not investment advice. Study the Past — Improve your Future 🥋 #Bitcoin #Indexing

🔴 MSCI targets bitcoin treasury firms in new non-operating company exclusion rule Index provider MSCI opened a consultation this month proposing to exclude "non-operating companies" from its Global Investable Market Indexes, a category that would capture major bitcoin holders Strategy and Metaplanet. The proposed screen uses a two-step process: first checking if operating assets exceed 50% of total assets, then applying five financial ratios (operating asset intensity, expense intensity, cash flow, fair value intensity, capital dependence).

Strategy And Metaplanet Face MSCI Index Exit Under New Rules MSCI is considering new rules for companies primarily holding investment assets. The proposed methodology could exclude Strategy and Metaplanet from the indexes. A simulation using May data also flagged Yellow Cake for removal. MSCI indexes track major publicly traded companies and are widely used by global funds as benchmarks for investment decisions. SharpLink and other companies could instead be placed on a watchlist. The proposal targets firms heavily reliant on financing to accumulate investment assets. MSCI’s consultation closes September 30, with potential implementation in November.

BREAKING: Indonesian Tech Firm GoTo Faces MSCI Index Exclusion

LATEST: Index giant MSCI proposes excluding "non-operating companies" from its global indexes, a screen that would remove @Strategy and @Metaplanet, with feedback due September 30 and results announced October 16.

Strategy and Metaplanet could be kicked out of major MSCI stock indexes. If the rules change, funds tracking those indexes could be forced to sell their shares. An index rule change could trigger real selling.

MSCI has opened a consultation on a new eligibility test for "non-operating" companies. A simulation with May 2026 data shows index exclusion for Strategy and Metaplanet from the MSCI ACWI IMI. cryptovalleyjournal.com/hot-…