Michael Saylor criticizes MSCI: Why the double standard for crypto companies?

Question

【ChainWen】Michael Saylor is at it again. This time, he’s targeting the MSCI “50% threshold” proposal—simply put, it aims to exclude companies with over half of their assets in cryptocurrencies from U.S. indices. The Executive Chairman of Strategy directly dismissed it as “bias” and “harmful.”

Strategy’s executive team responded with three main counterarguments. On the technical side, they questioned the rationale behind the 50% cutoff: “Why single out digital asset companies? What about companies heavily invested in oil, timber, or gold?” From an accounting perspective, they pointed out that basic factors like price volatility and balance sheet treatment were not considered.

The core disagreement lies in positioning. Strategy insists it is not a “Bitcoin ETF knockoff,” but a financial company actively using Bitcoin to generate returns for shareholders, with a focus on technological innovation. This is completely different from funds that simply package cryptocurrencies.

The most intense part is the final segment—raising the issue to a principles level, suggesting that MSCI, as a standards setter, engaging in such maneuvers could lead people to question the neutrality of the index. Implicitly: this is a landmine in the passive investment space.

Time is tight. If the proposal passes before January 15, Strategy warns there will be “extremely harmful consequences.” This index inclusion dispute has already become a direct confrontation between traditional finance and the crypto world.

AirdropHunterWang · Accepted Answer

It's just ridiculous. Why does MSCI have such strong opinions against cryptocurrencies... They can casually include oil and gold? Double standards are undeniable.

SingleForYears · Answer

Saylor really just insists on his stance, and MSCI's double standards are really outrageous... Why are they just targeting crypto?

That said, his logic isn't actually wrong; oil and gas stocks are still heavily invested in oil without anyone saying anything... It's just a matter of different treatment under public opinion pressure.

PortfolioAlert · Answer

This is ridiculous. On what grounds does MSCI give special treatment to crypto companies?

---

The 50% threshold is really inexplicable; why can oil companies land safely?

---

Well said. Strategy is just about doing what traditional finance does, and this can also be treated differently.

---

Double standards have been played out for so long; it's the old trick.

---

The key is that they haven't even figured out the accounting logic. They probably don't have some complicated considerations, right?

retroactive_airdrop · Answer

Saylor is really getting anxious this time. The 50% threshold set by MSCI is indeed outrageous. Why are they targeting only crypto companies?

HODL everyone. Ultimately, in this rule game, it all comes down to who has the stronger fist.

Double standard, as expected. It’s just the old tricks of Europe and America.

But then again, the Strategy positioning is indeed a bit awkward... Never mind, as long as BTC is bullish in the long run, it’s all good.

How should I put it, regulatory capture is indeed a problem, but Saylor’s response was a bit too fierce, fearing backlash.

This is the old story of traditional finance versus new forces, never-ending.

If this rule really takes effect, MicroStrategy will be in serious trouble... but I bet it won’t die.

MSCI is treating me differently here, hilarious. No one in the financial circle can’t see through these petty tricks.

ProbablyNothing · Answer

Honestly, MSCI's recent actions are indeed a bit outrageous. Why should cryptocurrencies be treated differently?

They are truly double standard players. Why aren't those oil giants being regulated?

Saylor's retort was spot on. This is blatant bias that needs to be exposed.

Why not just admit you're afraid of crypto? Instead, they play this game of "technical reasons."

The logic behind Strategy makes sense. They are simply engaging in smart asset allocation, which is completely different from bundling the crypto space.

These traditional finance folks just can't stand us managing our money well.

The double standard phenomenon: traditional companies can hold heavy positions in anything, but crypto must be restricted separately?

Saylor's move was clever, directly hitting the core—the discrimination.

I never thought that even after 21 years, this game would still be played. MSCI should reflect on this.

Trust me, this will escalate. Saylor is not the type to back down easily.