Strategy's bet on Nasdaq 100: when digital gold challenges the rules of the game

Strategy’s stay in the Nasdaq 100 after the December 2025 annual rebalancing marks a crucial inflection point, but also exposes an increasingly deepening tension in the markets: what happens when a traditional company completely transforms into a digital asset accumulation platform?

The index dilemma: Strategy as a case study

The December 22 rebalancing resulted in six exits and six entries in the Nasdaq 100. The surprising part was not the movement itself, but what did not happen: Strategy remained in the basket. This marks its first real test since its entry just months ago, a survival that the market interpreted in a contradictory way.

The stock closed with a visible downward slope (-3.74% at the close), continuing a negative trajectory over the last 30 days. The paradox is evident: remaining in the index should be a validation, but investors continued selling. Trading volume fell as the market faced some apathy, creating a context where the positive news of the rebalancing was overshadowed by the reality of the stock’s behavior.

The core issue: company or traded fund?

Strategy currently holds 660,624 BTC, valued at approximately $60 billion according to market estimates. The company has become the largest corporate holder of bitcoin on the planet, continuing a systematic buying strategy. In early December, it acquired 10,624 BTC for about $962.7 million, reflecting the rapid pace of its accumulation.

At this point, the corporate equation becomes worryingly simple: the total value of Strategy depends almost entirely on three interconnected variables — the price of Bitcoin (currently at $91.87K), its market premium or discount, and its financing structure—. This raises fundamental questions that have reached index regulators: is it still a traditional business operation, or does it function more like a specialized market vehicle?

MSCI in the crosshairs: the regulatory threat of January 2026

The index provider MSCI is examining proposals that could be decisive. The rule under consideration would exclude from the main indices companies whose exposure to crypto assets exceeds 50% of total assets. With Strategy significantly above this threshold, an unfavorable decision in January (around January 15, 2026) would have material consequences.

JPMorgan has quantified the risk: if MSCI acts, passive funds could face forced sales worth up to $2.8 billion. This is not a theoretical threat but a concrete scenario that explains part of the market nervousness and the downward slope keeping the stock under pressure.

Saylor’s defense: financing, not passive accumulation

In response to this pressure, Strategy’s leadership led by Michael Saylor responded with structural arguments. In a letter dated December 10, Saylor and CEO Phong Le argued that the company does not accumulate bitcoin passively but finances that accumulation through the issuance of diversified financial instruments, especially preferred shares.

Under this logic, Strategy presents itself as a sophisticated financial engineering operation, not as a simple bitcoin fund. The company also raised about $1.44 billion to strengthen its dividend payment capacity and debt servicing, aiming to mitigate solvency fears if pressure on the stock continued.

The ambitious vision: from treasury to financial infrastructure

Beyond tactical defense, Saylor has expanded the argument during his public appearances, including his participation in Bitcoin MENA in Abu Dhabi. There, he presented a more ambitious narrative: Strategy would not simply be a digital gold accumulator but a builder of “digital credit” infrastructure on bitcoin, designed to generate profitability and attract sovereign funds, banks, and family offices.

This conceptual reconfiguration seeks to transform the debate: shift the perception of Strategy from “market accident with a bias toward bitcoin” to “deliberate bridge between traditional finance and the institutionalization of bitcoin.” If it manages to solidify this narrative before MSCI and the markets, the downward slope could reverse. If not, the January 2026 decision could mark a significant breaking point for the company and its shareholders.