Bitwise's In-Depth Survey of 15 Major Institutions: Ten Trends in Institutional Crypto Investment

Original author: Matt Hougan, Bitwise

Original translation: AIdidiaoJP, Foresight News

Bitwise's in-depth interviews with 15 major global institutions show that institutional discussions about crypto have shifted from "whether to allocate" to "how much and how to allocate." Bitcoin is the only universally consensus asset, mostly treated as a store of value alongside gold; Ethereum and Solana must prove their value through real adoption and fee accrual, or they may be removed. Allocation ratios mostly range from 1%–2%, with a range of 0.5%–13%. The most critical finding is that during a market drawdown of approximately 50%, not a single institution reduced its position—some even added. Exit conditions are based on logic, not price. Current obstacles are mainly governance, reputation, and operations, rather than investment value itself. Spot ETFs lower barriers to entry, but 13F disclosures may understate true positions. The risk lies in a major crypto crisis, or utility failing to materialize over the long term. Overall, institutional capital is stickier and longer-term, and within five years most institutions may hold crypto assets.

Bitwise interviewed 15 major global institutional investors, asking them to share their true views on crypto assets. The results exceeded expectations.

In recent years, "the institutions are coming" has become almost a universal narrative in the crypto market. After spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs launched in 2024, institutional entry clearly accelerated. 13F holdings, derivatives trading volume, and public statements from figures like Larry Fink (Chairman and CEO of BlackRock), Dalio (founder of Bridgewater Associates), and Paul Tudor Jones (founder of Tudor Investment Corporation) all reinforced this trend.

But public data is far from sufficient to present the full picture. Foundations, university endowments, pensions, hedge funds, multi-family offices, and sovereign wealth funds often keep their crypto positions low-profile. Holdings are not public, they act cautiously, and many prefer to stay away from the spotlight.

So how do the world's largest investors really view crypto? What do they buy? How much do they allocate? And what is stopping them from adding more?

There is only one answer: ask them directly. We asked.

Earlier this year, Bitwise conducted in-depth interviews with executives responsible for crypto investments at 15 major global institutions, with some institutions participating in more than one round. This was Bitwise's first such survey. Before the interviews, we expected to learn something, but the results still exceeded expectations.

The most striking finding was this: from October 2025 to April 2026, crypto prices drew down more than 50%, and not a single institution interviewed planned to cut exposure. They are allocating on a long-cycle basis.

This article covers institutional views on issues including spot ETFs, Solana and Ethereum, and Bitcoin versus gold. Respondents requested anonymity, but the interviews were summarized in detail to bring readers into the meeting rooms of major global institutions.

Introduction

How do institutional investors view crypto?

Unlike most other assets, the crypto market has been retail-led from the start. Even today, retail still controls more than two-thirds of the crypto market. But institutions will still largely determine the direction of this asset class.

The problem is that institutions generally do not want to talk publicly about crypto positions. For competitive or reputational reasons, most institutions have historically avoided disclosing holdings. This report attempts to break that silence.

Earlier this year, Bitwise spoke in depth with senior investment officers at 15 major global institutions: what they buy, how much they allocate, and why they hold.

Their candor exceeded expectations. From October 2025 to April 2026, prices drew down more than 50%, and not a single institution interviewed planned to reduce positions. Institutions are making long-term allocations.

Whether you are an institution trying to understand peer behavior or an individual investor trying to gauge sentiment, this report offers a window.

Methodology

The report is based on 15 interviews conducted between late March and April 2026 with investment professionals responsible for crypto allocation at various institutions, covering endowments, foundations, public pensions, sovereign wealth funds, multi-family offices, investment advisors, and public companies, with assets under management ranging from hundreds of millions to tens of billions of dollars.

The interviews were semi-structured, lasting 30 to 60 minutes, and covered exposure, investment thesis, position size, governance, tools, rebalancing, exit conditions, and peer dynamics, with a focus on Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana.

Unless otherwise stated, market data in this article is as of April 30, 2026.

Summary

Institutions are increasingly treating crypto as an important part of the portfolio. Progress is faster and more durable than outsiders perceive. Despite remaining uncertainty, we expect most institutional investors to hold crypto assets within five years.

Across the 15 interviews, three conclusions appeared repeatedly.

First, Bitcoin is the universal consensus asset; Ethereum and Solana are not. Every institution interviewed that holds crypto holds Bitcoin. Most view it as a store of value, often paired with gold. Ethereum, Solana, and other coins are held selectively, more like venture-stage technology bets, with clear performance thresholds and shorter holding periods. Allocations range from 0.5% to 13% of investable assets, with most at 1%–2%.

Second, institutional crypto capital is very sticky. From October 2025 to April 2026, the market fell about 50%, and not a single institution interviewed reduced positions; several added. When asked what would prompt an exit, no one mentioned price. Exit triggers centered on logic: Ethereum and Solana failing to prove real utility, a regulatory shift, or an industry credibility crisis. This runs counter to the common assumption that "institutions are weak hands in a downturn"; selling pressure comes from elsewhere.

Third, the remaining obstacles are governance and reputation, not investment value itself. Most institutions interviewed acknowledged that adding crypto to a diversified portfolio makes sense. What actually slows allocation is how to fit it into existing investment policy classifications, how to get it through boards and committees, and how to manage headline risk. More spot ETFs, improved regulation, and more peer disclosures are lowering these obstacles, but they remain high.

We believe demand is building out of sight. Several investors that have not yet allocated are already in late-stage due diligence. But progress will be slow. Building consensus around an asset still viewed as controversial may take years, and institutions prefer to keep a low profile. The signs indicate that institutional capital is moving toward crypto.

Ten Trends

01 / Bitcoin is the universal consensus asset for institutions

Every institution interviewed that holds crypto holds Bitcoin. For almost all of them, it was the first, largest, and longest-held crypto position, and it is the asset with the strongest institutional consensus.

The reasons vary. Most treat Bitcoin as a store of value with asymmetric upside, often paired with gold as a hedge against fiat debasement. One endowment described it as "a store of value moving from emerging to mature," while also betting it will grow into a $20 trillion market over the next 5 to 15 years.

Several institutions allocate to a basket of leading crypto assets weighted by market cap, with Bitcoin accounting for about 80% of the crypto position. Most hold Bitcoin separately.

Even institutions that cannot directly hold Bitcoin acknowledge its diversification role. One large endowment, whose policy prohibits holding any spot commodity (including Bitcoin), still views it as digital gold and the anchor of the crypto asset class.

02 / Ethereum and Solana are bets that depend on logic materializing

Bitcoin is consensus; Ethereum and Solana (and other smaller coins) are not. Holders have smaller positions, shorter time horizons, and clear exit conditions.

Several institutions do not hold either at all. One had used DeFi applications extensively, including lending, trading, stablecoins, and staking, but could not see how value clearly accrues to the tokens. In their view, users do not care whether an application runs on Ethereum or Solana. Another could not fit them into its existing investment framework: are they stores of value, equity-like, or commodities? Without a clear value capture logic, or without being able to classify them cleanly, the default choice is not to invest.

Holders treat them as venture-stage technology bets. Several explicitly said they would sell if they do not see meaningful adoption in the coming years.

Among institutions that hold both, preferences are beginning to diverge. One endowment prefers Solana's architecture (high throughput, low latency, no reliance on Rollups); another holds only Ethereum, valuing visible adoption and its share in real-world applications such as DeFi, prediction markets, tokenization, and stablecoins.

Almost all institutions view both as utility-driven: value comes from real usage. Some in crypto try to position Ethereum as a monetary-use rival to Bitcoin, but institutions do not see it that way. For them, Ethereum and Solana only have value if transaction activity and fees clearly accrue to the tokens.

03 / Positions are small, but the direction is upward

Crypto allocations range from 0.5% to 13% of investable assets, with most at 1%–2%, usually spread across ETFs, direct holdings, venture capital, and hedge funds. The common pattern is: large enough to matter if the logic plays out, but not so large as to sink the portfolio.

During the volatility between late 2025 and early 2026, institutions either maintained positions or continued moving toward target allocations. Many are shifting less liquid private positions into direct holdings or ETFs. Several are layering in market-neutral strategies to reduce volatility and make approval easier. One allocator said: "The easier sell is to start with market-neutral. You are not betting on crypto going up or down, you are just betting on arbitrage."

The internal debate at institutions is no longer whether to allocate, but how much, with what tools, and across which assets.

04 / Spot ETFs have reshaped institutional access

Spot crypto ETFs have changed how institutions enter. Almost all institutions interviewed are already using them or plan to.

Institutions shifting from direct custody to ETFs cite lower total cost, lighter operational burden, and the fact that, from the middle and back office perspective, crypto positions finally look like other holdings. For allocators who suffered in the early years with custody, trading, and reporting, that last point matters more than most people think.

Those that have not yet shifted to ETFs are mostly locked into private vehicles with exit restrictions. They are evaluating ETFs not only for operational convenience but also for the rebalancing and liquidity that closed-end products cannot provide.

A few deliberately avoid ETFs. One sovereign fund is building domestic custody facilities to meet the government's requirement for direct control of underlying assets. One large public endowment's policy prohibits holding any spot commodity, even in ETF form. Others mentioned that ETF holdings must be disclosed in 13F filings, creating too much public visibility, which they do not want.

This has a practical implication: some institutions deliberately choose vehicles that bypass 13F. Therefore, using 13F to estimate institutional holdings should be viewed as a floor, not a ceiling.

05 / "Gold + Bitcoin" has become a major framework

Most institutions interviewed now view Bitcoin alongside gold. For those worried about fiat debasement, Bitcoin is already central to the equation. One large endowment said: "People are starting to treat Bitcoin alongside gold as the fiat debasement trade."

Several endowments deliberately build positions in parallel. More striking, one sovereign fund raised part of its crypto allocation by selling foreign exchange and gold reserves.

For some institutions, the two are shifting from complements to interchangeable expressions of the same view. One institution placed Bitcoin in its "gold bucket" and said plainly: "If we talk again in ten years, maybe we will tell you we gave up gold and switched entirely to Bitcoin."

Not everyone sees it that way. One foundation completely rejects the "digital gold" framework, categorizing all crypto as disruptive technology rather than a store of value.

06 / The obstacles are operational and reputational, not analytical

For the institutions interviewed, whether crypto is worth investing in is usually the easiest hurdle to clear. Historical performance and track record are already there, and the judgment that crypto is a disruptive technology—reshaping capital markets, global payments, and the store-of-value market—is fairly widespread.

What slows allocation is operations, reputation, and classification: how to custody it, how to explain the logic externally, and how to fit it into portfolios designed for stocks, bonds, and alternative assets. These obstacles are declining over time, just as they have for new asset classes throughout history.

The most practical advice came from one multi-family office: "Get a process first." That means using the same framework applied to other "wildly volatile" assets, rather than setting a higher bar specifically for crypto.

Decision-making frameworks vary widely. At one end, there is almost no formal approval, and the team allocates once it decides; at the other end, one sovereign fund's crypto program is directly scrutinized by the country's central bank leadership, with CIO background checks, security reviews, headline risk, and peer validation receiving even more attention than the investment thesis itself.

Classification is also a sticking point. Several institutions struggle with how to categorize Ethereum and Solana, and some simply do not invest as a result. Two endowments took different routes: one created a new "liquid venture" bucket within its venture allocation; the other simply classified all crypto as venture bets, bypassing the debate.

07 / Career risk deeply shapes institutional behavior

Career risk—the professional cost of getting an allocation wrong—shapes the behavior of every public-facing institution interviewed, and is often the key factor in whether and how they allocate. Foundations, public pensions, and sovereign funds all pointed to this. Smaller, less public, or founder-led institutions feel it less, but the pressure remains.

Institutions often allocate in herds. Once enough peers have completed and disclosed allocations, the risk shifts from "I allocated and got it wrong" to "everyone else allocated and I missed out." Interviews suggest the endowment space may be approaching that inflection point. A group of large university endowments has already publicly disclosed crypto positions, and several endowments said they now ask peers more directly about exposure than in the past. One even listed peer benchmarking as a primary driver of allocation.

This also creates risk: if the downturn drags on too long, the pendulum could swing back—the reputational risk of holding crypto could become greater than that of not holding it.

08 / Crypto managers meeting institutional standards are highly concentrated

Very few crypto fund managers can meet institutional requirements. One sovereign fund said: "It is hard to find managers that simultaneously meet minimum requirements for scale, track record, and operational infrastructure. We probably narrowed it down to ten names." After comparing lists with peers, almost nothing changed. "Everyone is at different stages of due diligence, but the names are the same." Other interviews confirmed this.

This convergence has a reassuring side: it shows institutions conduct serious due diligence and reach consistent judgments about who passes. But it also concentrates risk. As more institutions complete due diligence and invest, capital will flow disproportionately to a handful of firms; any compliance or operational incident at one of them would affect the entire cohort of allocators. One endowment worried: "If a fund raises too much, it may be forced to deploy regardless of whether opportunities are good."

Concentration also gives large allocators leverage in return. Managers crave sovereign and endowment capital, and some institutions are using that not only to buy funds but also to consider taking equity stakes in management companies, "in exchange for full transparency, strategy access, and a better understanding of the market."

09 / Exit conditions are based on logic, not price

From October 2025 to April 2026, the market fell about 50%. Not a single institution interviewed reduced positions; several added. Asked what would prompt an exit, no one cited price declines.

The exit conditions they gave were all logic-based. Several said they would exit Ethereum and Solana if real adoption fails to translate into asset prices in the coming years. One institution that has held crypto for a decade put it bluntly: "Something has to work. At some point, if these things do not work, we leave." Institutions that insist on only Bitcoin said they would reassess positions if a clear application emerges on Ethereum or Solana that materially changes where value accrues. Sovereign funds cited a regulatory reversal or major credibility crisis as reasons to consider exiting.

Some of these institutions have already weathered multiple drawdowns of more than 50%, including in 2022, and volatility neither surprises nor intimidates them.

One investment advisor said: "If the logic is right, given the S-curve of adoption, selling now is selling too early."

The implication for the market is: the main sellers in a downturn are not institutions, but retail, passive liquidators, or short-term traders unwinding basis trades or meeting margin calls. Institutional allocators are often on the other side of those trades.

10 / Sovereign allocation is taking root slowly and quietly

Several sovereign wealth funds interviewed are conducting due diligence on sizable crypto allocations. Some have already allocated; others are still in early research. Regardless of where they are, their attitude is constructive. The timeline is just slower than that of smaller crypto investors. One sovereign fund explained that even with presidential support and high-level political consensus, it would take more than a year to build the legal and regulatory infrastructure needed for sovereign capital to enter crypto. Other sovereign institutions have also publicly given multi-year timelines.

The reasons driving sovereign allocation sometimes go beyond portfolio returns. Several treat crypto investment as a means to attract foreign capital, support a national crypto agenda, or position the country as a hub for a fast-growing industry. This has a practical consequence: even if returns disappoint, the position can still make sense as long as these secondary goals are advancing. As a result, sovereign allocations may be stickier than the market assumes.

Looking Ahead

Underlying all the interviews is one question: will institutional adoption accelerate or slow? The overall picture is bullish, but whether it continues depends on four catalysts, two positive and