The Gatekeepers of Capital: Strategy Inc (MSTR), MSCI, and the Crisis of Passive Investing

Introduction: The Passive Paradox and the Crisis of Capital Allocation

The global financial architecture currently sits atop a tectonic fault line, the tremors of which have been increasingly felt in the chaotic market events of late 2025 and early 2026. This fault line is the overwhelming dominance of passive investing—a strategy originally conceived as a humble tool for the democratization of wealth, which has mutated into a monolithic, market-shaping force. The recent confrontation between MicroStrategy (Strategy Inc, ticker: MSTR) and the index provider MSCI serves as a defining case study of this systemic fragility. It exposes a market structure where the mechanical flows of passive capital have decoupled from fundamental value, creating feedback loops that reward financial engineering over productive enterprise. More critically, it reveals the emergence of index providers not as neutral scorekeepers, but as "quasi-regulators" wielding the power to destroy shareholder value through opaque decision-making processes and "enforcement by news cycle."

The core thesis of this report is that the passive investing complex, managed by gatekeepers like MSCI and S and P Global, has inadvertently created a regulatory chokepoint. This chokepoint suppresses corporate innovation that does not fit 20th-century molds, as evidenced by the "freeze" placed on MicroStrategy's share count metrics. Drawing upon the insights of venture capitalist Mark Andreessen regarding the capacity of regulators to "spook" markets, this report argues that the threat of exclusion from indices acts as a de facto "de-banking" of equity capital. The resulting destruction of value—where MicroStrategy lost nearly half its market capitalization in response to a proposal affecting a fraction of that value in passive flowsdemonstrates a dangerous asymmetry.

This analysis proceeds by first dissecting the evolution of passive investing from the stewardship-focused philosophy of John "Jack" Bogle to the current era of high-velocity speculation. It then examines the specific mechanics of the MicroStrategy "Bitcoin Treasury" flywheel and how it exploited the flaws in capitalization-weighted indexing. We then turn to the actions of MSCI, analyzing their "Digital Asset Treasury Company" (DATCO) proposal as a form of private regulation. Finally, we contrast the speculative strategies of Elon Musk and Michael Saylor to illustrate the gatekeepers' bias, before proposing concrete regulatory remedies, such as mandatory holding periods and time-weighted index methodologies, to restore sanity to the capital markets.

The Broken Haystack: Evolution of the Passive Paradigm

Bogle's: Stewardship and the Mathematics of the Haystack

The intellectual foundation of the modern equity market rests on the work of John "Jack" Bogle, the founder of Vanguard. Bogles philosophy was rooted in a specific interpretation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). His premise was mathematical and, at the time, irrefutable: the gross return of the market as a whole is the weighted average return of its constituents. Therefore, the net return of the average investor must be the market return minus costs. Since active managers charge higher fees and incur higher transaction costs through turnover, the average active manager must mathematically underperform the passive index fund over the long term.1

Bogles famous advice was to stop searching for the "needle" in the haystack—the one winning stock that would generate alphaand instead buy the "haystack" itself.1 This approach was designed to democratize investing, allowing the average worker to capture the compounding growth of corporate America without falling prey to the "croupiers" of Wall Street. Bogle viewed the stock market as a "giant distraction" from the business of investing; he championed a culture of stewardship where investors held broad, diversified portfolios for decades.1

Crucially, Bogles vision assumed a specific market ecology. He assumed that active managers would remain the dominant force in price setting—the "marginal price setter"ensuring that stock prices reflected fundamental reality. Passive funds would simply be "price takers," riding the wake of the active managers' discovery work. He advocated for low turnover, citing that in the 1960s, the average holding period for stocks was eight years. By the 2020s, this had collapsed to less than a year.1 Bogle himself, late in his life, began to warn about the potential dangers if passive investing became too large, asking, "What happens if everybody buys the haystack?".2

The Mutation: From Price Taker to Price Setter

The success of Bogles revolution sowed the seeds of the current crisis. As passive funds grew to control over 50% of U.S. equity assets 1, the ecology of the market flipped. Passive funds transitioned from being price takers to price setters. This shift fundamentally altered the mechanism of capital allocation.

In a passive-dominated regime, capital flows are not directed by an analysis of Return on Invested Capital (ROIC), innovation potential, or solvency. Instead, they are directed by market capitalization. If a company's stock price rises, its weight in the index increases, forcing passive funds to buy more of it. This creates a "momentum machine".3

• The Feedback Loop: When a stock enters a major index or increases in weight, passive funds must purchase it regardless of valuation. This buying pressure pushes the price higher, which increases the market cap, which increases the weight, which forces more buying.
• The Divorce from Fundamentals: This mechanical buying is "price insensitive." A passive fund does not care if a stock is trading at 10 times earnings or 1,000 times earnings. It buys because the rules dictate it must.

This dynamic has created what some analysts call "the dumbest market in history".4 The "margin of safety"—the buffer between price and value that protects investorshas been eroded by a tsunami of automated flows. The market no longer disciplines capital allocation; it reinforces size. The largest companies get cheaper capital simply because they are large, creating an entrenchment of incumbents and a distortion of the competitive landscape.4

The Speculative Shift: Turnover and Short-Termism

Bogle explicitly warned against the shift from "investment" to "speculation." He defined investment as forecasting the yield on assets over their life, while speculation is forecasting the psychology of the market.6 The modern index fund ecosystem, despite being labeled "passive," facilitates massive speculation.

• High Turnover in "Passive" Vehicles: While the funds themselves hold stocks passively, the investors in the funds trade them actively. ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) allow investors to trade the "haystack" with high frequency. The turnover rate of the SPY ETF, for example, is astronomically high compared to the underlying holding periods Bogle envisioned.6
• The Velocity of Money: This high-velocity trading of index products transmits volatility into the underlying securities. When macro sentiment shifts, billions of dollars slosh in or out of the entire market instantaneously, causing all stocks to move in lockstep (high correlation), destroying the benefits of diversification that indexing was supposed to provide.5

Thus, the tool Bogle created to bypass Wall Street speculation has been co-opted to become the ultimate instrument of it. It is within this distorted, momentum-driven environment that Strategy Inc (MicroStrategy) launched its assault on the conventional corporate treasury model.

The Bitcoin Treasury Flywheel: Exploiting the Passive Flaw

The MicroStrategy Thesis

In August 2020, MicroStrategy, under the leadership of Michael Saylor, adopted the "Bitcoin Standard." The company converted its depleting cash reserves into Bitcoin (BTC), viewing the digital asset as a superior store of value to the US dollar in an era of monetary expansion. This move transformed MSTR from a stagnant software company into a high-beta proxy for Bitcoin.8

However, the strategy evolved beyond simple holding. Saylor recognized the unique arbitrage opportunity presented by the passive-dominated equity market.

• The Premium: Because many institutions and retail investors could not access Bitcoin directly (due to regulatory mandates or lack of ETFs), they bought MSTR as a proxy. This demand drove MSTR's stock price to trade at a significant premium to the Net Asset Value (NAV) of its Bitcoin holdings.10
• The Issuance: MSTR utilized this premium to issue new equity and convertible debt. If the stock trades at 2x NAV, MSTR can issue 1 billion USD in stock to buy 1 billion USD in Bitcoin, and the per-share value of Bitcoin for existing shareholders actually increases. This is accretive dilution.8

The Index Inclusion "Infinite Money Glitch"

The genius—and dangerof the strategy lay in its interaction with passive indexing.

1. Step 1: Buy Bitcoin. MSTR buys BTC. BTC price rises.
2. Step 2: Stock Appreciates. MSTR stock rises, often amplifying the BTC move due to the NAV premium and leverage.
3. Step 3: Market Cap Expands. MSTRs market capitalization grows, triggering its inclusion in more indices (e.g., MSCI World, potentially S and P 500) and increasing its weight in existing ones.
4. Step 4: Forced Passive Buying. Index funds are forced to buy MSTR to match the new weight. This buying is price-insensitive.9
5. Step 5: Repeat. The passive buying supports the high stock price, allowing MSTR to issue more equity to buy more Bitcoin, restarting the cycle.

This "flywheel" effectively weaponized the passive investing mandate. The index funds were acting as the "greater fool," providing the liquidity that allowed MSTR to corner the Bitcoin market. It turned the passive market's mechanical rules into a source of perpetual funding for a speculative treasury strategy.8

The Distortion of "Operating" Companies

Critics argue this strategy violates the spirit of public equity markets. MSTR was no longer primarily an "operating company" creating value through software sales; it had become a "Digital Asset Treasury Company" (DATCO), essentially a leveraged holding company or a closed-end fund masquerading as a tech stock to access index capital.11

• The "Closed-End Fund" Risk: If the premium collapses and MSTR trades at a discount to NAV, the flywheel reverses. The company cannot issue accretive equity. If it has to sell Bitcoin to service debt, it could trigger a death spiral. Passive investors would be left holding the bag.10

The Quasi-Regulators: MSCIs Intervention and the "Chokepoint"

The reaction to MSTR's strategy by the index provider MSCI highlights the immense, unregulated power these entities now hold.

The Proposal: "Enforcement by News Cycle"

In late 2025, recognizing the systemic risk posed by DATCOs, MSCI released a consultation paper proposing to exclude companies from its global indices if their digital asset holdings exceeded 50% of total assets.12

• The Immediate Impact: The mere *proposal—not a final ruletriggered a catastrophic repricing. MSTR shares fell over 50% in Q4 2025.12
• Value Destruction: The passive contribution to MSTRs market cap was estimated at roughly 2.8 billion USD.13 However, the market cap loss was tens of billions. This discrepancy reveals the "multiplier effect" of index inclusion. The threat of losing the passive bid signaled to the entire market that MSTR was "uninvestable" for institutional mandates.

This phenomenon is "enforcement by news cycle." MSCI did not need to pass a law or win a court case. By simply floating a headline, they regulated MSTRs valuation down by 50%. This is a form of "soft power" that rivals the hard power of the SEC.12

The Decision: The "Freeze" as Regulatory Sanction

On January 6, 2026, MSCI announced its final decision. It retreated from full exclusion, likely due to the intense backlash and the complexity of defining "digital assets" (as many firms hold crypto). Instead, they implemented a "freeze" on share count metrics for DATCOs.8

• The Mechanism: MSCI stated it would "not implement increases to the Number of Shares (NOS)... for these securities".8
• The Consequence: This surgical strike was designed to break the MSTR flywheel. If MSTR issues new shares to buy Bitcoin, MSCI will not count those new shares in the index weight. Passive funds are therefore not forced to buy the new issuance.
• De-Indexing Growth: While MSTR remains in the index, its growth mechanism has been de-indexed. This turns off the tap of automatic passive capital for future expansion, effectively regulating the company's ability to raise capital.8

Index Providers as Quasi-Regulators

This episode confirms that index providers have become "Quasi-Regulators." They are private entities setting public policy for capital markets.

• Comparison to Proxy Advisors: Much like ISS and Glass Lewis control shareholder voting through "robo-voting" recommendations 14, MSCI and S and P control capital flows through "robo-investing" mandates.
• Private Regulation: Legal scholars define this as "private regulation" because these entities use their influence to manipulate the behavior of others to further a perceived social or market good (in this case, "index stability").15
• Lack of Due Process: Unlike the SEC, MSCI has no congressional mandate, no administrative procedure act to follow, and limited accountability. Their "Index Committees" operate in secrecy, making discretionary decisions about which companies survive and which starve.16

The table below summarizes the asymmetry of the MSCI impact:

Table 1: The Multiplier Effect of Index Exclusion. The market cap loss far exceeded the actual amount of passive capital, indicating that index eligibility is a primary driver of valuation multiples.

The Andreessen Critique: "Spooking" the Market and the Chokepoint

The actions of MSCI and the broader regulatory environment surrounding crypto-adjacent companies resonate deeply with the observations of venture capitalist Mark Andreessen. In his appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Andreessen articulated a theory of how modern regulation—both public and private—stifles innovation through fear and "chokepoints."

Regulators "Spooking" the Market

Andreessen argues that regulators do not always need to take formal action to destroy an industry; they simply need to "spook" the market. By creating an environment of ambiguity and threat, they deter capital from entering specific sectors.18

• The MSCI "Spook": The consultation paper on DATCOs was a classic "spook." It created existential uncertainty for MSTR shareholders. Even though the final decision was a compromise (a freeze rather than exclusion), the volatility introduced by the process achieved the regulator's goal: it cooled off the speculation and broke the momentum.12
• Psychological Operations: Andreessen notes that this creates a "chilling effect." Other companies observing MSTRs punishment will be deterred from adopting a Bitcoin Treasury strategy, fearing similar retaliation from index providers. Thus, the index provider effectively bans a corporate strategy without ever having to explicitly outlaw it.19

Operation Chokepoint and Debanking

Andreessen frequently references "Operation Chokepoint," an Obama-era initiative where regulators pressured banks to cut off services to disfavored but legal industries (e.g., gun manufacturers, payday lenders).

• De-Indexing as Debanking: In the modern era, being "de-indexed" is the capital markets equivalent of being "de-banked." For a public company, the index is the primary source of liquidity and capital stability. Being cut off from the S and P 500 or MSCI World is a death sentence for valuation.20
• The Elite/Public Gap: Andreessen identifies a divergence between "elites" (who favor stability, control, and traditional models) and the "public" (who favor innovation and new asset classes). The public market clearly desires Bitcoin exposure through MSTR, valuing it at a premium. The elite gatekeepers (MSCI Index Committee) intervened to "correct" this market preference, viewing it as illegitimate speculation.18

The Stagnation of Innovation

By enforcing rigid definitions of what an "operating company" is, index providers enforce stagnation. Andreessen argues that institutional systems are "wired" to reject things that challenge them.18 A company like MicroStrategy, which blurs the line between a software firm and a commodity hedge fund, disrupts the neat categorization required by passive index methodologies. The "freeze" is the system's antibody response to this disruption, protecting the status quo of 20th-century corporate models at the expense of 21st-century financial experimentation.22

Comparative Speculation: Musk vs. Saylor

To understand the specific bias of the gatekeepers, it is instructive to compare the treatment of Michael Saylor's MicroStrategy with Elon Musk's Tesla. Both engaged in forms of speculation that challenged index providers, but their outcomes differed.

Productive vs. Financial Speculation

• Tesla (Productive Speculation): Tesla was excluded from the S and P 500 for years despite meeting market cap requirements. The Index Committee cited "quality of earnings" and volatility concerns.17 Tesla was essentially a speculative bet on a new energy future. However, its speculation was "productive—it built factories, developed technology, and employed thousands. Eventually, once it showed GAAP profitability, the S&P Committee capitulated and added it, leading to a massive buying frenzy.17
• MicroStrategy (Financial Speculation): Saylor's speculation is purely financial. MSTR is not building "Bitcoin factories"; it is hoarding a bearer asset. The "flywheel" relies on financial engineering (issuing equity to buy assets) rather than operational growth. To the index committee, this looks less like a company and more like a structured product or an ETF wrapper.24

The Bias Against Crypto

There is a perception among analysts of a "bias against Bitcoin" within the index committees.23

• The "Conservative" Mindset: S and P and MSCI view themselves as guardians of the "broad economy." They are hesitant to legitimize an asset class (crypto) that challenges the sovereign currency system upon which the indices are denominated.25
• Discretionary Exclusion: While Tesla was delayed, MSTR faces a unique "technical freeze." This suggests that financial engineering is viewed with more hostility than operational volatility. The gatekeepers are signaling that using the public markets to hoard commodities is an abuse of the passive indexing mechanism.11

However, this distinction is arbitrary. Many resource companies (gold miners, oil majors) are essentially levered bets on commodity prices. The singling out of "Digital Asset" treasuries suggests that the "Quasi-Regulators" are enforcing a specific monetary ideology rather than neutral market measurement.22

Regulatory Remedies and Future Market Structure

The MSTR/MSCI saga proves that the current market structure, dominated by unregulated passive gatekeepers, is unsustainable. It concentrates too much power in the hands of private committees and creates systemic fragility. To restore the "stewardship" model Bogle envisioned and protect the market from "spooking," several regulatory remedies are necessary.

Remedy 1: Mandatory Holding Periods

The most direct antidote to the "momentum machine" and the "enforcement by news cycle" is to slow down the capital. Regulators should implement Mandatory Holding Periods for funds that market themselves as "passive" or "index" investments.

• The Mechanism: Investors in broad market index funds (e.g., S and P 500 ETFs) would be required to hold their positions for a minimum period (e.g., 6 months to 1 year) to qualify for favorable tax treatment, or face redemption fees for early withdrawal.26
• Precedents:
  • ELSS (India): Equity Linked Savings Schemes have a mandatory 3-year lock-in.26
  • Exchange Funds: These require 7-year holding periods for tax deferral.27
  • Employee Stock Plans: Often have 6-month lock-ups.28
• The Impact: This would reduce the "sloshing" of capital. If passive investors cannot flee at the first headline (like the MSCI proposal), the volatility of the underlying stocks would dampen. It would force investors to adopt the long-term horizon Bogle intended, turning them from "renters" of stock into "owners".6

Remedy 2: Time-Weighted Index Methodologies

The vulnerability of MSTR to the MSCI "freeze" was due to the nature of Capitalization-Weighted indices. A spike in price immediately grants a higher weight, fueling the flywheel. A shift to Time-Weighted methodologies would smooth this distortion.

• The Methodology: Instead of using the spot price to determine market cap weight, indices could use a Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) over a significant lookback period (e.g., 12 months).
  • Formula: The weight would be derived from $\text{TWAP}=\frac{\sum P_i\times T_i}{\sum T_i}$ rather than $P_{\text{current}}$.29
• The Effect: A sudden, speculative spike in MSTRs price would not immediately result in forced passive buying. The index would "wait" to see if the valuation is sustained over time. This would break the "instant feedback loop" that Saylor exploited, preventing the flywheel from overheating while protecting passive investors from buying the top.30
• Fallen Angel Precedent: FTSE already uses time-weighted methodologies for "Fallen Angel" bond indices to capture price rebounds without over-allocating to distress.30

Remedy 3: Regulating the Quasi-Regulators

Finally, the "Quasi-Regulators" themselves must be brought under the rule of law.

• Designation as SIFMUs: Major index providers (MSCI, S and P, FTSE) should be designated as Systemically Important Financial Market Utilities (SIFMUs).
• Transparency and Due Process: Index committees should be required to publish the minutes of their meetings and provide clear, objective criteria for inclusion/exclusion. The "black box" discretion that allowed for the MSTR freeze must be replaced by transparent, rules-based governance.16
• Prohibition on "Chokepoints": Regulators should prohibit index providers from discriminating against companies based on asset composition (e.g., DATCOs) unless there is a proven solvency risk. This would prevent the ideological "debanking" of crypto-adjacent firms.32

Remedy 4: Loyalty Shares (L-Shares)

To empower long-term shareholders against the transient passive flow, corporations should be encouraged to issue Loyalty Shares.

• Concept: Shareholders who hold stock for a defined period (e.g., >2 years) receive increased voting rights (e.g., 2 votes per share vs 1).33
• Passive Impact: Since passive funds trade frequently to rebalance, they would rarely qualify for the full voting power. This would shift governance control back to active, long-term shareholders (founders, families, active managers), restoring the "owner" mindset to the corporation.35

Conclusion: The Necessity of Intervention

The conflict between MicroStrategy and MSCI is not merely a squabble over index weighting; it is a structural crisis signal. It demonstrates that the passive investing revolution has reached a point of diminishing returns, where the mechanisms designed to lower costs are now raising systemic risks.

Jack Bogles vision of a low-cost "haystack" has been corrupted into a high-speed "momentum machine." Michael Saylor's exploitation of this machine through the Bitcoin flywheel was a rational response to the incentives provided. MSCI's response acting as a private regulator to "freeze" this activityreveals the dangerous, unaccountable power of index providers to destroy value via "enforcement by news cycle."

As Mark Andreessen warned, when regulators and gatekeepers "spook" the market, they drive capital away from innovation and enforce a stagnant conformity. The "de-indexing" of MicroStrategy is a warning shot to any public company that dares to deviate from the standard operating model.

To preserve the integrity of the public markets, we must move beyond the naive acceptance of passive dominance. We need a regulatory framework that acknowledges the reality of "Quasi-Regulators" and imposes checks on their power. Through mandatory holding periods, time-weighted indices, and the protection of long-term voting rights, we can redesign the market to serve its true purpose: the efficient allocation of capital to the future, not just the blind replication of the past.

Appendix A: Comparative Methodology of Index Weighting

Table 2: Market-Cap vs. Time-Weighted Methodologies. Source: Analysis of Nasdaq 29 and FTSE 30 methodology documents.

Works cited

1. Wealth quote of the day by John Jack Bogle, The stock market is a giant distraction from the business of investing. Why the Vanguard Method of Owning the Haystack, Not the Needle beat Wall Street's stock-picking game - The Economic Times, accessed January 13, 2026, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/wealth-quote-of-the-day-by-john-jack-bogle-the-stock-market-is-a-giant-distraction-from-the-business-of-investing-why-the-vanguard-method-of-owning-the-haystack-not-the-needle-beat-wall-streets-stock-picking-game/articleshow/126394872.cms

2. Jack Bogle looks back on the 40th anniversary of the index fund - InvestmentNews, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.investmentnews.com/etfs/jack-bogle-looks-back-on-the-40th-anniversary-of-the-index-fund/69964

3. The Increasing Risks of Passive Dominance | Research Affiliates, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.researchaffiliates.com/content/dam/ra/publications/pdf/1078-passive-aggressive-risks-of-passive-dominance.pdf

4. The Most Dangerous Era In History - RIA - Real Investment Advice, accessed January 13, 2026, https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/passive-investing-driving-the-most-dangerous-era-in-history/

5. The Hidden Risks of Passive Investing - Banque de Luxembourg Investments, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.banquedeluxembourginvestments.com/en/bank/bli/blog/-/blogpost/the-hidden-risks-of-passive-investing

6. The Wisdom of Jack Bogle: Part 2 - Marotta On Money, accessed January 13, 2026, https://marottaonmoney.com/the-wisdom-of-jack-bogle-part-2/

7. The Risks of Passive Investing Dominance - Alpha Architect, accessed January 13, 2026, https://alphaarchitect.com/passive-investing/

8. MSCI freezes share count for Bitcoin treasury firms, ending ... - BingX, accessed January 13, 2026, https://bingx.com/en/news/post/msci-freezes-share-count-for-bitcoin-treasury-firms-ending-strategy-s-index-driven-funding-loop

9. General MSTR Summary | PDF | Bitcoin | Exchange Traded Fund - Scribd, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/923479399/General-MSTR-Summary

10. MSTR's Net Bitcoin Holdings Now Exceed Its Market Cap by $3.4B - CCN.com, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.ccn.com/education/crypto/mstr-market-cap-below-bitcoin-value-risk-analysis/

11. Strategy gets to remain in MSCI indexes, stock gains over 6% | Seeking Alpha, accessed January 13, 2026, https://seekingalpha.com/news/4537196-strategy-gets-to-remain-in-msci-indexes

12. MicroStrategy Gets to Stay in MSCI Indexes. Is That Win Enough to Keep Buying MSTR Stock in 2026? - Barchart.com, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.barchart.com/story/news/36952103/microstrategy-gets-to-stay-in-msci-indexes-is-that-win-enough-to-keep-buying-mstr-stock-in-2026

13. MSTR Stock Breaks Above 20-Day Moving Average on MSCI Win. Should You Buy Shares Here? - Barchart.com, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.barchart.com/story/news/36945988/mstr-stock-breaks-above-20-day-moving-average-on-msci-win-should-you-buy-shares-here

14. The Realities of Robo-Voting, accessed January 13, 2026, https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/11/29/the-realities-of-robo-voting/

15. Private Regulation of Morality - UC Davis Law Review, accessed January 13, 2026, https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/2025-12/59-Online_Thusi.pdf

16. S and P AFE 40 - Methodology, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/methodologies/methodology-sp-afe-40-index.pdf

17. The largest Bitcoin-holding company failed to be included in the S and P 500, as cryptocurrency-related enterprises continue to face an 'identity crisis.', accessed January 13, 2026, https://news.futunn.com/en/post/61882149/the-largest-bitcoin-holding-company-failed-to-be-included-in

18. Huberman Lab Podcast - Marc Andreessen on Innovation and AI ..., accessed January 13, 2026, https://coconote.app/notes/00ef498a-17f5-417c-8b80-f79660b671be/transcript

19. [The AI Show Episode 184]: OpenAI Code Red, Gemini 3 Deep Think, Recursive Self-Improvement, ChatGPT Ads, Apple Talent Woes & New Data on AI Job Cuts, accessed January 13, 2026, https://podcast.smarterx.ai/shownotes/184

20. Governance by One-Lot Shares - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/70187390875C59AB07CC8E441701BCC3/S0022109024000516a.pdf/governance-by-one-lot-shares.pdf

21. Keen On America - Substack, accessed January 13, 2026, https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/309494.rss

22. Strategy Urges MSCI To Keep DATs In Global Indexes - Bitcoin Magazine, accessed January 13, 2026, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/featured/strategy-msci-keep-dats-in-indexes

23. 'Bias against bitcoin': Analysts compare Strategy's S and P 500 exclusion to previous Tesla, Facebook snubs | The Block, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.theblock.co/post/369909/bias-against-bitcoin-strategys-sp-500-exclusion-tesla-facebook-snubs

24. NBIM DIscussIoN NoTE Global equity indices, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.nbim.no/globalassets/documents/dicussion-paper/2014/discussionnote_2_2014.pdf

25. Filed - SEC.gov, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2056263/000121390025087046/ea0257134-425_procap.htm

26. Lock-in Period of Mutual Funds: Meaning, Types and Benefits, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.bajajamc.com/knowledge-centre/lock-in-period-of-mutual-fund-investments

27. Exchange Funds: A Tax-Efficient Strategy for Portfolio Diversification - Inside Sales Expert, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.insidesalesexpert.com/blog/Exchange%20Funds:%20A%20Tax-Efficient%20Strategy%20for%20Portfolio%20Diversification

28. personal account dealing (pad) policy - SEC.gov, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1320615/000093041314003318/c78212_ex99-p15.htm

29. NASDAQ-100 DAILY COVERED CALL 101TM INDEX NDXDC01, accessed January 13, 2026, https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/NDXDC01%20Methodology.pdf

30. FTSE Time-Weighted US Fallen Angel Bond Select Index | LSEG, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.lseg.com/content/dam/ftse-russell/en_us/documents/ground-rules/ftse-time-weighted-us-fallen-angel-bond-select-index-ground-rules.pdf

31. FUTURE STATE OF THE INVESTMENT PROFESSION - CFA Institute Research and Policy Center, accessed January 13, 2026, https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/survey/future-state-appendix-a.pdf

32. BPInsights: Nov. 2, 2024 - Bank Policy Institute, accessed January 13, 2026, https://bpi.com/bpinsights-nov-2-2024/

33. The revival of dual class shares | Baker McKenzie, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/publications/2020/03/the-revival-of-dual-class-shares.pdf

34. Should Shareholders Be Rewarded for Loyalty? European Experiments on the Wedge Between Tenured Voting and Takeover Law, accessed January 13, 2026, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&context=mbelr

35. CONSULTATION ON THE TREATMENT OF UNEQUAL VOTING STRUCTURES IN THE MSCI EQUITY INDEXES, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.msci.com/documents/1296102/8328554/Consultation_Voting+Rights.pdf/15d99336-9346-4e42-9cd3-a4a03ecff339