Who is selling, who is holding, and who is continuing to buy? The divergence in US institutional crypto ETF holdings

Original author: KarenZ, Foresight News

The most noteworthy thing in the first quarter was not how much prices dropped, but how institutions navigated through this pullback.

Looking purely at market performance, the crypto ETF landscape in Q1 2026 was not easy. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum faced pressure during the quarter, with the book values of spot ETFs generally declining. Even for positions not sold, the end-of-quarter reports were unlikely to look favorable. However, the truly interesting aspect of a market downturn is never the net asset value curve itself, but the different actions various institutions took against the same drawdown chart.

As of the latest round of 13F filings disclosed by mid-May 2026, the market can now see the end-of-quarter holdings of a group of institutions as of March 31, 2026. University endowments, major investment banks, sovereign wealth funds, market makers, and wealth management firms have provided several distinctly different answers.

Some Reduced Positions: Risk Contraction First

Let's first look at those who reduced their holdings.

Harvard Management, which manages the Harvard University endowment and related financial assets, is one of the most typical samples in this round. According to its 13F filing, its IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) holdings dropped from 5,353,612 shares at the end of Q4 2025 to 3,044,612 shares at the end of Q1 2026, a reduction of approximately 43%. Correspondingly, the book value also fell from about $266 million to roughly $117 million. Meanwhile, its holdings in ETHA (iShares Ethereum Trust), which were present in the previous quarter, were completely exited this quarter. This suggests that Harvard wasn't just passively responding to the price pullback, but was actively compressing its public exposure to spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs.

This change in holdings also implies another layer. Harvard didn't completely shift to a defensive posture. Instead, it reallocated a portion of its positions to assets related to the AI and computing power chain, increasing holdings in stocks like NVIDIA, Broadcom, and TSMC. Looking at these actions together, it resembles a structural rebalancing of "reducing crypto, adding AI," rather than an overall risk contraction.

Goldman Sachs adopted a broadly similar strategy, albeit with a more complex approach. Comparing the last two 13F filings, Goldman Sachs held approximately $690 million in IBIT and about $25.18 million in FBTC (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund) at the end of Q1 2026, both down from the previous quarter. More notable than the simple reduction is its position structure: Goldman Sachs simultaneously holds spot positions, call options, and put options on IBIT, indicating this is not just a directional bet but also carries clear trading and hedging attributes.

Goldman Sachs' approach to Ethereum was more aggressive. It not only cleared its holdings of the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (worth $394 million at the end of Q4 2025), but also significantly reduced its spot position in the iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) by approximately 74%, leaving a residual position of about $114 million. Additionally, it newly held $66.885 million worth of the iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF.

Concurrently, Goldman Sachs liquidated all its XRP and Solana-related ETFs. As of the end of Q4 2025, it held approximately $152 million in XRP ETFs from Bitwise, Franklin Templeton, Grayscale, and 21shares. It also sold off all its Solana ETFs/trusts from Grayscale, Bitwise, and Fidelity (valued at $109 million at the end of Q4 2025).

Regarding crypto stocks, Goldman Sachs increased its stake in Circle by 249% to around $140 million, and its position in Galaxy Digital increased by 205% (reaching $41.48 million). Holdings in Coinbase (+65%), Robinhood (+35%), and PayPal also increased. During the same period, it reduced its holdings of Strategy and Riot Platforms. Overall, this looks more like an internal rotation of "compressing ETF risk and shifting to selected individual stocks."

Among hedge funds, Millennium Management also gave a similar signal. Public compilations show its IBIT holdings fell from 34.334 million shares to 19.287 million shares, a decrease of about 43.8%. ETHA holdings also decreased simultaneously (by about 34.3%), indicating a clear reduction in exposure to both spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs.

Capula Management Ltd, a London-based hedge fund manager, went even further. As of December 30, 2025, it held $470 million in IBIT, $160 million in FBTC, $207 million in ETHA, and $61.43 million in FETH. However, the latest 13F filing shows these ETFs have been completely liquidated. Additionally, Capula Management Ltd has fully exited its position in Coinbase (retaining a small options position).

Holding Steady: An Attitude in Itself

The second category is those who held steady.

Brown University's IBIT holdings remained unchanged at 212,500 shares. Based on the disclosed market value, this position fell from approximately $10.551 million at the end of 2025 to about $8.164 million at the end of Q1 2026. This type of endowment fund did not translate a quarter's price volatility directly into trading instructions but emphasized portfolio discipline and a long-term allocation rhythm.

Dartmouth College's handling of crypto assets in Q1 2026 resembled a moderate expansion rather than an aggressive rotation. Comparing its latest 13F with the previous quarter, the college retained its existing Bitcoin ETF base position, with IBIT share count largely unchanged. However, with the price pullback in Q1, the book value fell from over $10 million to approximately $7.7 million. For its Ethereum exposure, it made a product switch, converting the previous Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust into the Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF with staking attributes, holding about 178,100 shares. It also newly established a position in the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF, holding approximately 304,803 shares with a book value of around $3.3 million.

Another Approach: Buying More as Prices Fall

The third category involves those who increased their positions against the trend.

Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Mubadala is one of the most prominent names. Its IBIT holdings increased from 12,702,323 shares to 14,721,917 shares, an increase of approximately 15.9%. However, even with the higher share count, the end-of-quarter market value still fell from about $631 million to around $566 million. These numbers are very telling. Increasing a position does not automatically lead to profitability, especially when the market is still in a pullback channel. Increasing allocation first and foremost creates greater exposure, and only secondarily potentially higher future upside.

JPMorgan Chase's actions can also be understood within this logic. The latest 13F data shows JPMorgan increased its IBIT holdings from approximately 3.028 million shares to roughly 8.3 million shares, a 174% increase, while also adding some exposure to FBTC, BITB, and Ethereum ETFs. Based on the share count change, it clearly became more active. However, this doesn't mean it has locked in excess returns amidst this volatility. For large banks, increasing ETF positions often involves expanding product shelves, meeting client allocation needs, balancing liquidity, and managing book risk, rather than simply being directionally bullish.

The position changes at Wells Fargo are also worth noting separately. Comparing the before and after, the bank retained its core IBIT position while increasing allocations to products like BITB and the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust. More significantly, it notably increased its allocation to Ethereum ETFs. ETHA holdings rose from approximately 672,600 shares to roughly 1.1 million shares, and ETHW holdings were also increased. This suggests Wells Fargo adopted a strategy of "retaining the Bitcoin base position while raising the weight of Ethereum."

Market maker Jane Street showcased another typical style. Comparing two quarters of 13F data, it significantly reduced its spot Bitcoin ETF exposure in Q1. IBIT holdings fell from about 20.3 million shares to roughly 5.9 million shares, and FBTC also decreased substantially. However, simultaneously, it added approximately $82 million in Ethereum ETF exposure. On the crypto stock side, Jane Street increased its positions in Galaxy Digital (8746%), Circle (1162%), Coinbase (+14%), and BitMine (+47%). This combination looks more like a classic trading-driven rebalancing: reducing Bitcoin ETFs, adding Ethereum ETFs, while seeking higher upside in selected individual stocks.

Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana: Institutions are Making Finer Risk Distinctions

This round of 13F filings also carries another signal worth expanding upon: Institutional attitudes towards BTC ETFs, ETH ETFs, and even Solana ETFs are no longer uniform. The more pertinent question now is which crypto assets institutions plan to keep in their core holdings, which to place in tactical flexibility positions, and which to simply remove first.

Take Harvard Management for example. While it reduced its IBIT position, it completely exited ETHA. This looks like a risk ranking. The Bitcoin ETF retained a relatively core position, whereas the Ethereum ETF was prioritized for cutting during the portfolio rebalancing.

Goldman Sachs' approach also shows large financial institutions taking this ranking to a more extreme level. It retained a relatively large Bitcoin ETF exposure in Q1 but contracted its Ethereum-related products much faster, while essentially clearing out XRP and Solana ETFs. Looking at the overall picture, Goldman Sachs seems to be re-concentrating its positions into the asset class it deems most liquid, easiest to hedge, and easiest to fit into institutional risk models. Here, Bitcoin acts more like a "base position," Ethereum is a compressible position, and products like Solana and XRP are closer to peripheral experimental positions—the first to be cut when market volatility increases.

On the other hand, Wells Fargo and Dartmouth College present completely different answers. Wells Fargo proactively increased its Ethereum ETF weight, indicating that within its internal framework, Ethereum is seen more as a secondary position worth increasing allocation to during a pullback to seek upside. Dartmouth College's strategy is also representative: it didn't touch its Bitcoin ETF base position but extended its tactical flexibility to Solana-related ETFs, especially those with staking attributes.

The 13F Offers a Snapshot, but Also Leaves Blanks

This is where the most caution is needed when analyzing institutional holdings.

The 13F allows the public to see, on a standardized basis, how mainstream institutions are allocating to crypto ETFs. However, it has very clear limitations. Firstly, there is a time lag. Investors seeing these filings in May are only viewing a snapshot of the institutions' holdings as of March 31st. If significant portfolio changes occurred in Q2, the filings won't show them. Secondly, the 13F only displays holdings, not the actual purchase cost. If an institution's position value drops in a quarter, it doesn't necessarily mean it is in an overall loss, as it might have bought at a lower price or engaged in intra-quarter selling and re-buying.

Furthermore, for institutions like Goldman Sachs, positions in spot ETFs are often combined with options, hedges, and market-making-related positions. Viewing the table alone can easily lead to misinterpreting trading behavior as a long-term stance.

Yet, precisely because of its incompleteness, the 13F serves more as a window into institutional sentiment rather than a conclusive report. Seeing Abu Dhabi's Mubadala increase holdings while its book value declines reveals the patience of sovereign capital. Seeing Brown University hold steady while absorbing the pullback shows long-term allocation discipline. Seeing Harvard University reduce its Bitcoin and exit Ethereum ETFs reveals the true sensitivity of endowment funds to volatility. And seeing JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and Jane Street continue adjusting their exposure across various products shows that Wall Street still treats crypto ETFs as an asset class that needs to be kept on the shelves and continuously repriced.