2026

Metaplanet

Lydia

Bitcoin

when

<p>MSCI has adopted new eligibility rules for its global stock indexes, putting Bitcoin treasury companies Strategy (MSTR) and Metaplanet (3350) at risk of removal when the changes take effect after the November 30, 2026, close.</p>
<div id="cn-block-summary-block_9147e930272d5da0b00c69b9dc3498c8" class="cn-block-summary">
 <div class="cn-block-summary__nav tabs"><span>Summary</span>
 </div>
 <div class="cn-block-summary__content">
  <ul>
   <li>MSCI has approved new eligibility rules that could remove Strategy and Metaplanet from global indexes.</li>
   <li>November 11 is the scheduled date for MSCI to publish its final list of affected companies.</li>
   <li>Companies failing operating asset requirements face exclusion after triggering four of five financial ratio tests.</li>
   <li>Existing index members must fail screening across two recent annual filing periods before facing removal.</li>
   <li>MSCI will end temporary restrictions on companies holding digital assets representing 50% of total assets.</li>
  </ul>
 </div>
</div>
<p>MSCI <a href="https://app2.msci.com/webapp/index_ann/DocGet?format=html&amp;lang=en&amp;pub_key=aq0wbkjxPgo=&amp;utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">confirmed</a> on October 15 that companies classified as non-operating businesses will no longer qualify for its Global Investable Market Indexes. The index provider will release its final list of potentially affected companies on November 11, leaving their eligibility unresolved until the review is announced.</p>
<p>The decision follows an August consultation that identified Strategy and Japan-based Metaplanet as potential deletions in a simulation using May 2026 data. Ethereum treasury company SharpLink (SBET) appeared on a watchlist, while U.K. uranium investment company Yellow Cake was among the firms flagged for removal. MSCI has not confirmed that the simulated deletions will appear in the November review.</p>
<p>You might also like: <a href="https://crypto.news/strategy-challenges-msci-proposal-targeting-digital-asset-treasury-firms/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow"> Strategy challenges MSCI proposal targeting digital asset treasury firms </a></p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="strong-msci-index-rules-introduce-two-tests-for-company-eligibility-strong"><strong>MSCI index rules introduce two tests for company eligibility</strong></h2>
<p>Under the approved methodology, MSCI will first examine whether a company holds substantial operating assets. Companies that fail this initial assessment will face a second screening process involving five financial ratios, with exclusion triggered when at least four of those tests are flagged.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-x wp-block-embed-x">
 <div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
  <blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
   <p>MSCI Adopts New Index Exclusion Rules; Strategy and Metaplanet Face Potential Removal<br><br> MSCI has adopted new rules to exclude non-operating companies from its Global Investable Market Indexes. In an earlier simulation based on May 2026 data, MSCI identified Bitcoin treasury… <a href="https://t.co/UxeZUuYlFA" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">pic.twitter.com/UxeZUuYlFA</a></p>— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) <a href="https://x.com/WuBlockchain/status/2110848350828589411?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">October 15, 2026</a>
  </blockquote>
 </div>
</figure>
<p>The screening is intended to identify companies whose financial characteristics resemble investment vehicles instead of operating businesses. In its August consultation, MSCI <a href="https://app2.msci.com/webapp/index_ann/DocGet?format=html&amp;lang=en&amp;pub_key=akYg4WzbEDk&amp;utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">proposed</a> extending existing restrictions on investment funds, business development companies and other passive investment vehicles to corporate issuers with similar financial characteristics.</p>
<p>The rules contain a separate condition for companies already included in MSCI indexes. An existing constituent must fail the exclusion screening in each of its two most recent annual filing periods before removal. MSCI may consider the most recent interim financial filing when available.</p>
<p>For companies seeking entry into an index, a failure in either of their two most recent annual filing periods can prevent inclusion. MSCI said the thresholds and timing requirements contain buffers designed to reduce frequent changes to index membership. The final methodology includes minor modifications to the August proposal, though the October announcement did not detail each adjustment.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="strong-strategy-and-metaplanet-were-flagged-in-an-earlier-msci-review-strong"><strong>Strategy and Metaplanet were flagged in an earlier MSCI review</strong></h2>
<p>The May simulation placed Strategy, Metaplanet and Yellow Cake among companies that would have been removed from the MSCI ACWI Investable Market Index using the proposed screening method. Strategy had a free-float-adjusted market capitalization of approximately $23.93 billion in the exercise, compared with $654 million for Metaplanet and $1.81 billion for Yellow Cake. Those figures describe the earlier simulation, not their current market valuations.</p>
<p>SharpLink, Taiwan’s Center Laboratories and Turkey’s Lydia Holding were assigned to a potential watchlist in the same exercise. The watchlist classification reflected companies that had met the screening conditions in their latest filing period without meeting the requirements for immediate removal. The exercise used historical financial information and did not establish their final status under the adopted rules.</p>
<p>For Strategy, the MSCI announcement arrives as the Michael Saylor-founded company continues accumulating Bitcoin. Its October 12 disclosure confirmed the purchase of 250 BTC for approximately $21.5 million during the previous week, raising total holdings to 848,250 BTC. The company spent $192.4 million repurchasing its STRC preferred shares during the same period.</p>
<p>The transactions were covered in a recent report on <a href="https://crypto.news/strategy-spends-9-times-as-much-on-strc-as-bitcoin/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Strategy’s Bitcoin purchases and preferred stock buybacks</a>. Its reported Bitcoin holdings carried an aggregate acquisition cost of approximately $64 billion, including fees and related expenses, as of October 11.</p>
<p>In Japan, Metaplanet has continued expanding its Bitcoin treasury while pursuing investments intended to generate recurring income. According to its capital allocation policy reported in October, the company plans to retain approximately 85% to 90% of total assets in Bitcoin and allocate the remainder to other investments. Metaplanet held 44,000 BTC at the end of September, as detailed in its <a href="https://crypto.news/metaplanet-caps-bitcoin-borrowing-as-btc-holdings-reach-44000/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">revised Bitcoin treasury and borrowing policy</a>.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="strong-strategy-disputes-msci-s-treatment-of-bitcoin-treasury-companies-strong"><strong>Strategy disputes MSCI’s treatment of Bitcoin treasury companies</strong></h2>
<p>Strategy has publicly opposed the methodology, arguing that MSCI’s proposed classification does not properly recognize its Bitcoin treasury operations. In its response to the consultation, the company described the proposal as “misguided” and maintained that the classification of operating and non-operating companies lacked a basis in established accounting standards.</p>
<p>The company <a href="https://www.strategy.com/msci?utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">argued</a> that the rules could unfairly target digital asset treasury companies, despite being written to apply to different types of corporate issuers. Strategy maintained that its Bitcoin business qualifies as an operating segment under U.S. accounting principles and questioned MSCI’s authority to exclude it using the proposed classification.</p>
<p>On the potential effect of removal, Strategy estimated that funds tracking MSCI’s Global Investable Market Indexes held approximately 13 million of its shares. The company said the position represented 3.1% of its basic shares outstanding and less than one average trading day’s volume.</p>
<p>Those figures were part of Strategy’s opposition to the proposal, not an independent assessment of future selling. The company argued that the exclusion “would not meaningfully affect Strategy,” while continuing to object to MSCI’s classification method.</p>
<p>In an earlier consultation, MSCI had considered restrictions involving companies whose digital asset holdings represented at least 50% of their total assets. The index provider subsequently moved to a company screening framework that applies financial tests without naming a particular asset class.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="strong-msci-sets-november-11-for-final-list-of-affected-companies-strong"><strong>MSCI sets November 11 for final list of affected companies</strong></h2>
<p>The October decision establishes the timetable for implementing the new methodology. MSCI will announce the final list of potentially affected constituents on November 11, as part of its scheduled index review, before the changes take effect at the close of trading on November 30.</p>
<p>At the same time, MSCI will discontinue temporary measures introduced in October 2025 for companies identified as holding digital assets worth at least 50% of total assets. Those measures had restricted increases in index share counts and certain inclusion factors, while delaying additions and movements between index size categories.</p>
<p>Companies previously covered by the temporary measures will instead be evaluated using the newly adopted non-operating company methodology. MSCI confirmed that the replacement applies to the entire affected group, with eligibility determined by the operating-assets and financial-ratio screens.</p>
<p>The original consultation began on August 3 and accepted market feedback through September 30. MSCI announced the results on October 15, ahead of its October 16 deadline, and retained the two-period screening requirement for existing constituents.</p>
<p>For companies that fail the November review, MSCI’s implementation timetable specifies the November 30 close as the effective point for index changes. The provider’s announcement permits further notices if needed before implementation.</p>
<p>Read more: <a href="https://crypto.news/bitcoin-mining-cleanspark-bitfufu-canaan/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow"> Bitcoin output falls at CleanSpark and BitFuFu as Canaan holds steady </a></p>

MSCI’s new rules put Strategy, Metaplanet at risk

Table of Contents

crypto.news

Other articles published on Oct 16, 2026

Aster DEX vs. Hyperliquid: Why Does Everyone Compare The Two?

Can Stellar Really Help People Without Bank Accounts?

Bitget Got Hacked. Why Is THORChain on Trial?

"Vibe Coding" Meets the Internet Computer: A Plain-English Glossary for the AI App-Building Era

Why Have Nonprofits And NGOs Gravitated Toward Stellar’s Network?

What Makes Ondo Stocks Different From Other Tokenized Stocks?

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!