On October 18, 2026, Michael Saylor sat in the Bloomberg studio, forced to respond directly to a reality that is reshaping the narrative of "Bitcoin stocks": MSCI plans to exclude companies heavily invested in Bitcoin, such as Strategy, from global stock indices under new index rules. As a major global index compiler, MSCI is backed by massive passive tracking funds and asset allocation processes. On one hand, Saylor claims that even if MSTR is excluded, the impact on the company is limited because the scale of passive capital involved is relatively small; on the other hand, he clearly states it is "disappointing" and warns that this could set a negative precedent tinged with discrimination for the entire digital asset industry. In the interview, he likened MSCI's actions to a biased value judgment: oil, natural gas, land, and machinery can all be seen as capital, but Bitcoin cannot. This, in his view, is almost like "unregistered investment advisors" deciding for global investors. In the same time frame, on-chain and contract markets provided another narrative: over the past 24 hours, approximately $288 million in liquidations occurred across the network, including about $227 million in long positions and about $60.73 million in short positions, with longs accounting for nearly 78%. The main battlefields for liquidations were focused on two core assets; Bitcoin liquidations were about $25.387 million, and Ethereum liquidations were about $58.207 million. The liquidation data comes from a single source, CoinAnk (as quoted by Foresight News). Currently, there is no evidence that it has a direct causal relationship with the MSCI or MSTR events, but these two seemingly parallel clues point to a core issue: how the risk pricing of Bitcoin will be reshaped when index providers rewrite what constitutes "compliant capital," while leveraged sentiment is using real cash to force adjustments in risk exposures.

Tightening Index Threshold: The Red Line for Bitcoin Stocks' Passive Funds

MSCI's plan to exclude companies like Strategy from the global stock index effectively pushes heavily invested Bitcoin stocks to the margins within the traditional index framework. The MSCI global stock index serves as a core tracking benchmark for a huge number of passive management funds and ETFs. Once Bitcoin exposure vehicles like MSTR are excluded, their positioning in traditional asset portfolios will slip from "equity exposure within the system" to "alternative position outside the system." Saylor explicitly stated in the Bloomberg interview that this intention is disappointing and he is concerned it will set a negative precedent for the entire digital asset industry, essentially reminding us that when index providers no longer recognize Bitcoin as "compliant capital," the valuation anchor for Bitcoin stocks will start to detach from the pricing framework of mainstream stocks.

Saylor also emphasized that even if MSTR is excluded, the impact on the company is limited because the scale of relevant passive capital is "relatively small." This statement downplays potential selling pressure on one hand and reveals the reality of MSTR's pricing structure on the other—funds truly willing to use MSTR as a Bitcoin leverage tool are not from the portion of passive capital that buys according to MSCI weightings. Yet, even if passive capital has a low proportion, it provides a continuous price floor and liquidity buffer: as long as the index is present and passive capital is in play, the market is willing to pay a certain valuation premium for "compliant Bitcoin exposure stocks"; once the index closes, the process of converting this premium into a risk premium will accelerate, making Bitcoin stocks more like cyclical trading targets rather than long-term allocations within portfolios. For cross-asset trading built around BTC and ETH, this means: the pathway of holding Bitcoin through stocks is weakened, risk appetite becomes more concentrated on the on-chain and contract markets themselves, adding a thicker layer of volatility premium to all assets bearing Bitcoin elements.

Saylor's Counterattack: Is Bitcoin Considered Capital?

In the Bloomberg interview, Saylor effectively drew the line directly at the level of "capital definition rights." He explicitly criticized MSCI: assets like oil, natural gas, land, and machinery that can be included in index companies are all regarded as capital, while Bitcoin, which is similarly used for long-term allocation and occupies a core position on Strategy's balance sheet, is excluded from "capital goods." In his narrative, this is not just a technical matter but a biased selection based on value judgment, equivalent to an index company acting as an unregistered investment advisor deciding which assets deserve a place in the global stock index based on its preferences. He repeatedly emphasized that if MSCI can exclude MSTR for not recognizing Bitcoin's capital attributes, the entire digital asset industry could be labeled as "non-capital" or "non-compliant assets."

From a macro perspective, whether Bitcoin is classified as capital or a speculation tool is not determined by index membership but rather by the fundamental attitudes of regulatory, accounting, and valuation systems toward such assets. If regarded as capital, Bitcoin can be understood as a long-term productive factor like land and machinery: holding BTC on corporate balance sheets is seen as a strategic allocation, and capital costs, risk weights, and valuation discount logic will revolve around "long-term capital goods"; conversely, once categorized purely as speculative items, it will face higher prudential requirements, greater profit and loss volatility discounts, and structural risks of being excluded at any time by indices, institutions, and compliant portfolios. MSTR's business model is inherently betting on the former narrative—Bitcoin as a core capital allocation at the corporate level—and if MSCI indirectly denies this attribute through its rules, it is not only betting against Strategy but also sending a clear signal to all listed companies attempting to incorporate digital assets into their balance sheets and reconnect with traditional indices and passive funds: whether Bitcoin essentially counts as capital will directly determine if it becomes a long-term chip within the mainstream valuation system or if it gets locked away in a pool of "high volatility and easily severed exposure" marginal assets.

Nearly $300 Million in Leveraged Liquidations: A Bloody Night of Concentrated Long Liquidations

While MSCI competes on the discourse of "Is Bitcoin capital?", the derivatives market provided another cold answer: over the past 24 hours, approximately $288 million in liquidations occurred on the entire network, with around $227 million in long positions and about $60.73 million in short positions, with long liquidations nearing 80% (approximately 78.8%). This is not a technical correction of balanced long and short positions but a concentrated clearing targeting high-leverage longs. The data comes from CoinAnk and is quoted by Foresight News; in the absence of multi-source verification, we can only regard it as a strong risk signal, but the signal itself is already clear: previously, funds were highly skewed towards betting on an upward trend, and now these bets have been mechanically and en masse wiped from the market.

What is more noteworthy is the choice of liquidation battleground—Bitcoin contract liquidations were about $25.387 million, and Ethereum contract liquidations were about $58.207 million, with the two core assets bearing the brunt of the liquidation pressure, amplifying their price volatility, and forcing high-leverage positions in futures and perpetual contracts to clear in a short period. At the macro level, this indicates a reset of the overall market leverage level within a single trading day, with risk appetite retreating from "daring to double down on mainline assets" to "first reducing leverage and then assessing the situation." Funds structurally contracted from the high-leverage contract side, returning more to low-leverage or even cautious states. It is essential to emphasize that currently, there is no evidence that this round of approximately $288 million in liquidations is directly time- or causally related to the MSCI rules or MSTR events. They can only be seen as two pieces of information occurring in parallel during the same time window—one discussing whether Bitcoin can enter the mainstream capital pool, and the other warning that the current high-leverage bets on Bitcoin and Ethereum are rapidly being cleared.

From Index to Contract Markets: How Funds Reprice Bitcoin Risks

Within the same time frame, MSCI's intention to exclude companies like Strategy "Bitcoin stocks" from the global stock index contrasts with the separate pricing systems for Bitcoin risk illustrated by the approximately $288 million in network liquidations over the past 24 hours. For passive tracking funds, changes in MSCI rules primarily alter the boundary of "whether to hold": once high-beta vehicles like MSTR, which combines stock valuation logic with Bitcoin price sensitivity, are excluded, their risk in the eyes of index funds is no longer just volatility but a discount on compliance and configurability. These related assets might be required to trade at lower valuations or even structural discounts. Such changes mainly reflect in sentiment and risk control parameters for active funds—they observe institutionalized rejection by traditional indices of Bitcoin exposure stocks, thereby raising these assets' risk weights relative to spot Bitcoin and Ethereum in their models, compressing the reasonable premium space for gaining Bitcoin exposure indirectly through stocks.

In parallel, there is the brutal clearance in the contract markets: long liquidations totaled about $227 million, accounting for about 78.8%. Bitcoin and Ethereum contract liquidations amounted to roughly $25.387 million and $58.207 million respectively, directly pulling back the high-leverage bets on these two core assets to low-leverage status. After excessive cleaning of leveraged longs, open interest and overall leverage levels passively contracted, temporarily reducing short-term systemic leverage risk; however, the market's risk tolerance was also forcibly reset, shifting the contract markets' pricing of Bitcoin from "positioned bets" to a more conservative margin and position management approach. Currently, there is no data proving funds have flowed from MSTR to other crypto assets; we can only theorize structurally: if the index side diminishes the allocation qualifications of Bitcoin exposure stocks like MSTR, the status of high-beta stocks as Bitcoin vehicles will be questioned. Meanwhile, after reducing leverage on the contract side, new risk budgets will likely prioritize moving back to more liquid spot Bitcoin and Ethereum, and low-leverage derivatives, seeking more symmetrically risk-return bearing tools across the three links of stocks, spots, and contracts.

The Next Round of Game: Passive Funds' Attitudes and Volatility Premiums

The dispute between MSCI and Saylor essentially lays a long-standing issue on the table: in global capital markets, are publicly listed companies that regard Bitcoin as a core asset deemed "normal stock exposure," or are they viewed as high-risk carriers requiring additional discounts? The specific terms and timeline of MSCI's new index rules have not yet been disclosed. The uncertainty of this identity recognition will directly affect whether passive funds are willing to provide liquidity for such positions in the long term, and it will also translate into the long-term risk premium for Bitcoin exposure stocks relative to spot Bitcoin. Alongside this, the recent approximately $288 million in network liquidations, with nearly 80% of long positions, points out that Bitcoin and Ethereum have become the main battlegrounds for leveraged clearance. This data reminds us that, in the current environment, being excessively concentrated on unidirectional long leveraged structures can easily be magnified into severe volatility within the range of overlapping policy and index messages; the market will use a higher future volatility premium to compensate for this experience. Although there is no evidence to establish a causal relationship between the MSCI events and liquidations, they provide a clear risk signal in the same time window: going forward, funds will closely monitor the final direction of MSCI rules, changes in the price difference between MSTR and Bitcoin, and the rebuilding rhythm of open interest and funding rates in the contract markets to determine whether passive funds choose to retreat or continue to pay for high-beta Bitcoin exposure, thus redefining the risk pricing coordinates for the next phase.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/en/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。