Ai đang bán, ai đang cầm cự, ai đang tiếp tục mua? Sự phân hóa trong nắm giữ ETF tiền điện tử của giới tài chính lâu đời Mỹ

Original author: KarenZ, Foresight News

What’s most worth watching in the first quarter isn’t how much prices have fallen, but how institutions navigated through this pullback.

If you only look at the market, Q1 2026 was not easy for crypto ETFs. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum came under pressure during the quarter, with the book values of spot ETFs generally declining. Even positions that weren't sold looked less impressive by the end of the quarter. But the truly interesting part of a downturn has never been the NAV curve itself, but what different types of institutions *did* on the same drawdown chart.

As of the latest batch 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 offered several distinctly different answers.

Some Reduced Positions: Risk Contraction First

Let’s first look at the reducers.

Harvard Management, which manages the Harvard University endowment and related financial assets, is one of the most typical examples 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 fell from about $266 million to about $117 million. Meanwhile, its holdings in ETHA (iShares Ethereum Trust), which it held in the previous quarter, were completely exited in Q1. This suggests Harvard wasn't just responding to the price pullback; it was actively compressing its public exposure to Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs.

This change in holdings carries another implication. Harvard didn’t shift entirely defensively; instead, it reallocated a portion of its positions to assets related to AI and the computing chain, increasing holdings in stocks like NVIDIA, Broadcom, and TSMC. Viewed together, these actions resemble a structural rebalancing of "reducing crypto, adding AI," rather than an all-out risk contraction.

Goldman Sachs pursued a broadly similar strategy, albeit with more complex tactics. Comparing the latest 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 the structure of its position: Goldman Sachs simultaneously holds spot, call options, and put options on IBIT, indicating this is not purely a directional bet but also carries significant trading and hedging attributes.

Goldman Sachs' approach to Ethereum was more aggressive. It not only cleared its position in the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (valued at $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 remaining position of about $114 million. Additionally, it newly held $66.885 million in the iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF.

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

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

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

Capula Management Ltd, a hedge fund management company headquartered in London, UK, 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 report shows these ETFs have been completely liquidated. Concurrently, Capula Management Ltd has fully exited its position in Coinbase (retaining a small options position).

Holding Steady: Silence Speaks Volumes

The second category is the holders.

Brown University's IBIT holdings remained at 212,500 shares, unchanged. Based on the disclosed market value, this position fell from approximately $10.551 million at the end of 2025 to approximately $8.164 million at the end of Q1 2026. This type of university endowment doesn't directly translate a quarter's price volatility into trading orders, but instead emphasizes portfolio discipline and long-term allocation pacing.

Dartmouth College's handling of crypto assets in Q1 2026 resembled a moderate expansion rather than an aggressive reshuffling. Comparing its latest 13F with the previous quarter, the college retained its core Bitcoin ETF position, with the number of IBIT shares remaining essentially unchanged. However, due to the price pullback in Q1, the book value fell from over $10 million to about $7.7 million. For Ethereum exposure, it executed a product swap, shifting from the previous Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust to the staking-enabled Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF, holding approximately 178,100 shares. It also established a new position in the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF, holding about 304,803 shares with a book value of roughly $3.3 million.

Another Playbook: Buying More as Prices Fall

The third category is the contrarian accumulators.

Abu Dhabi sovereign 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 about 15.9%. However, despite the increase in shares, the quarter-end market value still fell from approximately $631 million to about $566 million. These numbers are quite telling. The act of increasing a position doesn't automatically lead to profit. Especially when the market is still in a pullback channel, adding exposure first creates greater risk, and only then possibly 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 about 3.028 million shares to about 8.3 million shares, an increase of 174%, while also adding some exposure to FBTC, BITB, and Ethereum ETFs. Judging by the change in share count, it was clearly more active. However, this doesn't necessarily mean it has locked in excess returns during this volatile period. For large banks, increasing ETF positions is often about expanding their product shelf, meeting client allocations, balancing liquidity and book risk, rather than simply being bullish.

Wells Fargo's position changes are also noteworthy. Comparing before and after, the bank retained its core IBIT holdings while increasing allocations to products like BITB and the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust. More significantly, it substantially increased its Ethereum ETF exposure, boosting its ETHA holdings from about 672,600 shares to roughly 1.1 million shares, and also adding to its ETHW holdings. In other words, Wells Fargo adopted a strategy of "maintaining the Bitcoin core, raising the Ethereum weight."

Market maker Jane Street displayed another typical style. Comparing the two periods' 13Fs, it significantly reduced its Bitcoin spot ETF exposure in Q1, with IBIT holdings dropping from about 20.3 million to roughly 5.9 million shares, and FBTC also notably decreasing. However, simultaneously, it added approximately $82 million in Ethereum ETF exposure. Regarding crypto equities, Jane Street increased holdings in Galaxy Digital (8746%), Circle (1162%), Coinbase (+14%), and BitMine (+47% ). This combination looks more like a typical trading-driven rebalance: reducing Bitcoin ETFs, adding Ethereum ETFs, while seeking higher upside in individual stocks.

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

This round of 13F filings also reveals a significant signal: 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 go into tactical sleeves, and which are simply removed first.

Take Harvard Management as an example. It reduced IBIT while completely exiting ETHA. This looks like a risk ranking. Bitcoin ETF retained a relatively core position, while the Ethereum ETF was prioritized for cuts during the portfolio rebalancing.

Goldman Sachs' approach also shows large financial institutions taking this ranking to an extreme. It still maintained a significant Bitcoin ETF exposure in Q1, but its contraction of Ethereum-related products was noticeably faster, while essentially clearing its XRP and Solana-related ETFs. Viewed collectively, Goldman Sachs is re-concentrating its positions into the asset layer it deems most liquid, easiest to hedge, and simplest to integrate into institutional risk models. Bitcoin functions more as a "core position" here, Ethereum as a compressible one, while products like Solana and XRP are closer to marginal experimental positions – the first to be cut when market volatility increases.

On the other hand, Wells Fargo and Dartmouth College presented completely different answers. Wells Fargo proactively increased its Ethereum ETF weight, suggesting that within its internal framework, Ethereum looks more like a secondary position worth adding to during a pullback to seek upside. Dartmouth College's strategy is perhaps more representative: it didn't touch its Bitcoin ETF core position but shifted its incremental capital allocation to Solana-related ETFs, especially those with staking features.

13F Filings Offer a Snapshot, but Leave Gaps

This is also where one needs to be most restrained when interpreting institutional holdings.

13F filings allow the outside world to see how mainstream institutions allocate to crypto ETFs under a standardized reporting format. However, they have very clear limitations. First, they have a time lag. What investors see in May is merely a snapshot of institutional holdings as of March 31. If significant portfolio changes occurred in Q2, the table won't show them in advance. Second, 13F filings only display holdings, not the actual purchase cost. A decline in an institution's position value over a quarter doesn't necessarily mean it had an overall loss, as it might have bought at lower prices earlier or executed intra-quarter buy-and-sell trades.

Furthermore, for institutions like Goldman Sachs, positions beyond spot ETFs often involve options, hedges, and market-making-related holdings. Viewing the table in isolation can easily lead to misinterpreting trading activities as long-term strategic stances.

Yet, precisely because of its incompleteness, the 13F serves more as a window into institutional sentiment than a conclusion sheet. Seeing Abu Dhabi's Mubadala increase its position while its book value declined reveals sovereign patience. Seeing Brown University stand still and endure the drawdown reveals long-term allocation discipline. Seeing Harvard reduce Bitcoin and exit Ethereum ETFs reveals the real sensitivity of a university endowment to volatility. And seeing JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and Jane Street continue adjusting their exposure across various products reveals that Wall Street still views crypto ETFs as a product category that needs continuous shelf placement and repricing.