Bitcoin · X 热门 · 2026-09-30 17:30 UTC

# Bitcoin — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-30 17:30 UTC)

## @bitcoinmalaya (Bitcoin Malaya) · 09-30 13:22 · ♥318 ↻124 💬17 “I pay taxes so I want more illegal immigrants, as long as not in my apartment” https://t.co/MrpUGCkt3g > 引用 @bitcoinmalaya: International media is not confused. It is selective.

When Malaysia hosted >200,000 Rohingya for years while richer capitals took speeches instead of people: “🤫 🤐”

When Malaysia starts sending 1500 back: “YOU ARE KILLING THEM”

I support Malaysia on deportation

Hosting without a law, a time limit, or a return path is how a temporary crisis becomes a permanent one https://x.com/bitcoinmalaya/status/2105287114023977069

## @cryptorover (Crypto Rover) · 09-30 16:15 · ♥391 ↻31 💬105 How do we call this Bitcoin pattern? https://t.co/XxxhlIKJgr https://x.com/cryptorover/status/2105330769031987348

## @bitcoinpolicy (Bitcoin Policy Institute) · 09-30 13:20 · ♥321 ↻53 💬15 NEW FINDINGS: We took a close look at MSCI’s effort to exclude Bitcoin treasury companies from major stock indexes.

We found an internal project trail buried in a public document, years of ESG advocacy, and proposed rules that could reach far beyond Bitcoin.

Our new paper, “Wall Street’s Invisible Committee,” documents what we uncovered and provides recommendations for policymakers.

MSCI reports an astonishing $21 trillion benchmarked to its indexes. When its committees change which companies qualify, funds tracking those indexes must adjust their holdings. A methodology decision can trigger billions in reallocation.

Here’s what we found.

𝟭. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁’𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲.

In 2025, MSCI proposed excluding Digital Asset Treasury Companies (DATCOs) holding at least half their assets in digital assets. After substantial opposition, it shelved the proposal.

It later returned this year with a broader, facially neutral test for “non-operating companies.” MSCI’s own simulation would exclude Strategy and Metaplanet.

We examined the public consultation PDF and found something revealing in its embedded metadata.

The source presentation’s internal file path includes—

“Projects/DATCOs/Operating vs Non Operating”

A proposal presented as a general classification rule retains a source-file path explicitly associated with the category targeted by the earlier exclusion effort.

While metadata alone cannot prove the outcome was predetermined, it raises a direct question for MSCI. Were these criteria developed to classify companies consistently, or engineered to reach the same exclusions against digital asset companies through a broader rule?

𝟮. 𝗠𝗦𝗖𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 “𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗿𝘆𝗽𝘁𝗼” 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿.

We traced its public record back to an October 2021 article titled “Creeping Crypto.”

MSCI publicly warned about cryptocurrency exposure entering equity portfolios, described most cryptocurrencies as “speculative investments with little evident utility,” and flagged Bitcoin’s Proof of Work as environmentally dangerous.

They identified 26 exposed public companies and promoted tools for screening additional exposure. Singled out at the very bottom of their ESG rankings... was Strategy.

While the article did not call for exclusions, it does establish that an internal belief at MSCI that Bitcoin and digital asset companies were an ESG concern four years before proposing to remove digital asset treasury companies.

𝟯. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀.

CEO Henry Fernandez has repeatedly, publicly proclaimed the urgent importance of ESG investing. In 2021, he recounted urging bankers to “refuse to take a company public or do a bond offering” without a net-zero pledge.

MSCI’s leadership also combined responsibility for ESG and index governance. Its then-head of indexes described an ambition for its flagship global index to become “green, one company at a time.”

These statements do not prove the motive behind today’s proposal. They make the boundary between MSCI’s advocacy and its broad-market index decisions a serious governance question.

𝟰. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮’𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆.

The proposed test relies on “operating assets” without a sufficiently clear, reproducible classification framework.

How should it treat a satellite awaiting launch? A mine under construction? Capital raised to build a factory?

Our analysis shows how plausible interpretations could disadvantage emerging, strategic industries before they have the chance to compete.

Americans buying broad-market funds deserve transparent rules, reproducible decisions, and meaningful accountability from the committees deciding what they own.

Read the full findings and our recommendations below ↓ https://t.co/eVtRVZvbYM https://x.com/bitcoinpolicy/status/2105286617967497425

## @BitcoinArchive (Bitcoin Archive) · 09-30 16:18 · ♥332 ↻32 💬38 Bitcoin is clearly heading to zero.

Critics were right (laughs).

When $400k? 🚀 https://t.co/AGtYgwKARu https://x.com/BitcoinArchive/status/2105331560715039159

## @cryptorover (Crypto Rover) · 09-30 15:30 · ♥317 ↻25 💬52 Bitcoin Spot ETF cumulative flows are about to hit new all-time highs SOON!

Institutional money could easily send $BTC to $200,000 this cycle. https://t.co/cyHVKLFFmH https://x.com/cryptorover/status/2105319256950759509

## @RAFAELA_RIGO_ (⭐RᗩᖴᗩEᒪᗩ 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗢 ⭐) · 09-30 16:21 · ♥320 ↻18 💬36 . IM LONG $BTC . https://t.co/LGWyZzyN26 https://x.com/RAFAELA_RIGO_/status/2105332123360203035

## @phongle (Phong Le) · 09-30 16:24 · ♥310 ↻30 💬21 MSCI told the SEC it “expresses no opinion or view as to whether any market, company, strategy, or investment is good or bad.” Yet its recent efforts sure seem to express the opinion that Bitcoin is bad. This is bigger than Bitcoin. $21 trillion is benchmarked to MSCI indexes. > 引用 @bitcoinpolicy: NEW FINDINGS: We took a close look at MSCI’s effort to exclude Bitcoin treasury companies from major stock indexes.