I'm not getting this either. MQA was developed by that one Meridian guy, then spun off into a company. It licensed its technology to various companies, including Tidal. From what I gather--I was not a close watcher of this technology, I'm an old vinyl guy--it claimed various benefits to "unfolding" which could, it was claimed, improve on the sound, as delivered through streaming, by offering more apparent bandwidth than the signal sent. Those claims were questioned.
Now, the MQA company has filed for a reorganization, in part according to their press release, to allow the original major money to get out-I don't know who that is.
If there is something the OP is suggesting that Tidal itself did (is it an investor, did it market MQA beyond verifiable claims or at least the claims made by MQA itself), I don't see them holding the bag. It may change how they market higher rez audio. Beyond that, I have no opinion on the merits of MQA beyond the known controversies. I don't see Tidal dragged into this simply because they were delivering an MQA version of releases.
One of the bigger issues I have with streaming services is what mastering they are purporting to deliver. I can listen to different versions of the "same" record that sound different because of who mastered, where it was pressed, by what plant, etc. Do you get that level of detail on streaming services? I trialed Qobuz for a couple months- it actually sounded decent-- but the deep catalog on jazz was anything but- it was quite shallow. It didn't supplement what I didn't have. I don't need remixes or reissues of common warhorses.