Was it justifiable in the first place?

If you look what companies were included and companies that already are on S&P, you might get the same feeling as me.
For instance, Robinhood was added, but it's actually worth over 5 billion less than Strategy.
Last month they added Interactive Brokers - a Company worth 100 billion, pretty much the value of MSTR, so it's not really about the numbers.

Also, there's a lot of companies worth much less than Strategy happily taking a spot. Some examples:

Charles River Laboratories International, worth only 8 billion. 12 times less than MSTR!
LKQ - another 8B company... and there's more.
Not to mention that Coinbase is listed, while it's only worth 76 b.

There's a rumor that the US might want to buy MSTR. Nationalize, nationalize it and that's. Which is why they want its value to stay where it is, while S&P inclusion could increase its net worth and make it buy more bitcoin.
I guess that's also something the US doesn't want just yet, since the national reserve is almost non existent at this point.

Was it justifiable in the first place?

If you look what companies were included and companies that already are on S&P, you might get the same feeling as me.
For instance, Robinhood was added, but it's actually worth over 5 billion less than Strategy.
Last month they added Interactive Brokers - a Company worth 100 billion, pretty much the value of MSTR, so it's not really about the numbers.

Also, there's a lot of companies worth much less than Strategy happily taking a spot. Some examples:

Charles River Laboratories International, worth only 8 billion. 12 times less than MSTR!
LKQ - another 8B company and there's more.

There's a rumor that the US might want to buy MSTR. Nationalize it and that's why they want its value to stay where it is, while S&P inclusion could increase its net worth and make it buy more bitcoin.