Who’s Selling, Who’s Holding, and Who’s Still Buying? The Diverging Crypto ETF Holdings of America’s Old Money
Original author: KarenZ, Foresight News
The most important thing to watch in the first quarter isn't how much prices dropped, but how institutions navigated through this drawdown.
Looking solely at market performance, the first quarter of 2026 was no easy ride for crypto ETFs. Bitcoin and Ethereum faced pressure throughout the quarter, with spot ETFs generally seeing declines in their notional market value; even positions that weren't sold looked far from impressive by quarter-end. But the real interest in a downturn has never been the net worth curve itself—it’s what different types of institutions did on the same drawdown chart.
As of the latest 13F filings disclosed in mid-May 2026, the market can now see the quarter-end positions held by institutions as of March 31, 2026. University endowments, major investment banks, sovereign funds, market makers, and wealth management firms have offered several distinctly different answers.
Someone is reducing their position: first, shrink the risk.
First, let’s look at the reducers.
Harvard Management, which manages Harvard University’s endowment and related financial assets, is one of the most typical examples in this round. According to its filed 13F report, the holdings in IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) decreased 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%, with the corresponding book value declining from about $266 million to about $117 million.
Meanwhile, its remaining position in ETHA (iShares Ethereum Trust) from the previous quarter has been fully exited this quarter, indicating that Harvard is not merely reacting to price corrections but actively reducing its public exposure to Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs.
This change in holdings has another layer of meaning. Harvard did not broadly shift to a defensive stance, but rather reallocated part of its portfolio to assets related to AI and computing power, increasing positions in names like NVIDIA, Broadcom, and TSMC. Taken together, these moves more closely resemble a structural rebalancing—reducing crypto exposure while increasing AI exposure—rather than a broad risk reduction.
Goldman Sachs' strategy is broadly similar, but more sophisticated. Comparing its last two 13F filings, Goldman Sachs still held approximately $690 million in IBIT and about $25.18 million in FBTC (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund) as of the end of Q1 2026, with both positions reduced from the previous quarter. More notable than the simple reduction in position size is its portfolio structure: Goldman Sachs holds spot, call options, and put options on IBIT simultaneously, indicating this is not merely a directional bet, but also carries clear trading and hedging characteristics.
Goldman Sachs adopted a more aggressive approach to Ethereum, not only liquidating its position in the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (valued at $394 million as of Q4 2025), but also significantly reducing its stake in the iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) spot ETF by approximately 74%, leaving a remaining position of about $114 million. Additionally, it newly acquired a $66.885 million position in the iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs has fully exited 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, and also fully liquidated all its Solana ETFs/Trusts from Grayscale, Bitwise, and Fidelity (valued at $109 million as of the end of Q4 2025).
In the realm of crypto stocks, Goldman Sachs increased its position in Circle by 249% to approximately $140 million and raised its stake in Galaxy Digital by 205% (to $41.48 million); it also increased holdings in Coinbase (+65%), Robinhood (+35%), and PayPal. During the same period, it reduced positions in Strategy and Riot Platforms. Overall, this appears to be an internal rotation aimed at compressing ETF risk and shifting toward selectively chosen individual stocks.
Millennium Management in the hedge fund space has also signaled similar moves. Public records show its IBIT holdings decreased from 34.334 million shares to 19.287 million shares, a reduction of approximately 43.8%; its ETHA holdings also declined simultaneously (by about 34.3%), indicating a significant reduction in positions for both Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs.
The London-based hedge fund management firm Capula Management Ltd held $470 million in IBIT, $160 million in FBTC, $207 million in ETHA, and $61.43 million in FETH as of December 30, 2025, but its latest 13F filing shows these ETFs have been fully liquidated. Meanwhile, Capula Management Ltd has also fully exited its position in Coinbase, retaining only a small options position.
Holding steady is itself a stance.
The second group consists of those who are holding steady.
Brown University's IBIT holding remains at 212,500 shares, with no increase or decrease. Based on disclosed market value, this holding decreased from approximately $10.551 million at the end of 2025 to approximately $8.164 million at the end of the first quarter of 2026. Such university endowments do not directly convert quarterly price fluctuations into trading instructions, but instead emphasize portfolio discipline and long-term allocation timing.
Dartmouth College’s handling of crypto assets in Q1 2026 resembled a modest scaling up rather than an aggressive rebalancing. Compared to its previous quarter’s 13F filing, the college maintained its existing Bitcoin ETF position, with IBIT holdings remaining largely unchanged; however, due to the price pullback in Q1, the reported market value declined from over $10 million to approximately $7.7 million.
The Ethereum exposure was transitioned by replacing the original Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust with the Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF, holding approximately 178,100 shares; simultaneously, a new position in the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF was established, totaling approximately 304,803 shares, with a book value of about $3.3 million.
Another strategy: Buy the dip
The third category consists of those who increase their holdings against the market trend.
Mubadala, Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, is one of the most prominent names. Its holdings of IBIT increased from 12,702,323 shares to 14,721,917 shares, an increase of approximately 15.9%. However, despite the higher share count, the market value of its position at the end of the quarter declined from approximately $631 million to about $566 million. These figures speak volumes. Increasing a position does not automatically lead to profit, especially when the market is still in a retracement phase—adding to a position first increases exposure, and only later might it offer greater upside potential.
JPMorgan's actions can also be understood within this logic. The latest 13F data shows that JPMorgan increased its holdings of IBIT from approximately 3.028 million shares to about 8.3 million shares, a 174% increase, while also increasing its exposure to FBTC, BITB, and Ethereum ETFs.
From the change in share count, it clearly appears more positive; however, this does not mean it has locked in excess returns during this volatility. For large institutions, increasing ETF positions is often about expanding their product offerings, meeting client allocation needs, and balancing liquidity and book risk—not merely taking a one-way bullish stance.
The position changes at Wells Fargo are also worth examining separately. Comparing the prior and current positions, the bank has maintained its core holding in IBIT while increasing allocations to products such as BITB and the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust.
More notably, it significantly increased its position in Ethereum ETFs, raising its ETHA holdings from approximately 672,600 shares to about 1.1 million shares, while also increasing its ETHW holdings. This indicates that Wells Fargo is adopting a strategy of "maintaining a Bitcoin core position while increasing Ethereum's weight."
Market maker Jane Street demonstrated another typical style: comparing its two 13F filings, it significantly reduced its exposure to spot Bitcoin ETFs in the first quarter, lowering its IBIT holdings from approximately 20.3 million to about 5.9 million shares, and also saw a notable decline in FBTC; at the same time, it added approximately $82 million in exposure to Ethereum ETFs.
On the crypto stocks front, Jane Street increased its positions in Galaxy Digital (8746%), Circle (1162%), Coinbase (+14%), and BitMine (+47%), among others. This portfolio shift resembles a typical tactical rebalancing: reducing exposure to Bitcoin ETFs while increasing exposure to Ethereum ETFs, and seeking higher elasticity through individual stocks.
Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana: Institutions are conducting more granular risk rankings
Another noteworthy signal in this round of 13Fs is that institutions are no longer aligned in their views on BTC ETFs, ETH ETFs, or even Solana ETFs. The more pressing question now is which crypto asset institutions plan to keep in their core positions, which to place in their flexible positions, and which to remove entirely.
Taking Harvard Management as an example, it simultaneously reduced its position in IBIT while completely exiting ETHA, which reflects a prioritization of risk. Bitcoin ETFs remain in a relatively core position, whereas Ethereum ETFs were prioritized for elimination during portfolio rebalancing.
Goldman Sachs' approach also illustrates that large financial institutions are pushing this ranking strategy to an even greater extreme. While it maintained a significant exposure to Bitcoin ETFs in the first quarter, it rapidly reduced its holdings in Ethereum-related products and essentially eliminated its positions in XRP and Solana-related ETFs.
When viewed together, Goldman Sachs is reallocating its positions to focus on assets it considers the most liquid, easiest to hedge, and most readily incorporable into institutional risk models. Bitcoin here functions more like a "core position," Ethereum as a compressible position, and products like Solana and XRP as marginal experimental positions—these are typically the first to be liquidated when market volatility increases.
On the other hand, Wells Fargo and Dartmouth College presented a completely different perspective. Wells Fargo proactively increased the weight of Ethereum ETFs, indicating that, within its internal framework, Ethereum is viewed more as a secondary position worth increasing during drawdowns to enhance flexibility.
Dartmouth College’s strategy is more representative: it did not touch its Bitcoin ETF holdings but extended its new allocations to Solana-related ETFs, particularly those with staking features.
The 13F provided the market with a snapshot, but also left gaps.
This is also the area where you most need to exercise restraint when analyzing institutional holdings.
13F filings allow the public to see how major institutions are allocating to crypto ETFs on a consistent basis, but they also have clear limitations. First, there is a time lag: what investors see in May reflects only a snapshot of institutional positions as of March 31. If significant portfolio adjustments were made in the second quarter, those changes will not appear in the filings until later.
Second, 13F filings show only holdings, not the actual purchase cost. A decline in an institution's holding value over a quarter does not necessarily indicate an overall loss, as it may have bought at a lower price earlier or made partial reductions and re-additions during the quarter.
Moreover, for institutions like Goldman Sachs, positions in options, hedging, and market-making may often be layered on top of spot ETFs; looking solely at the table can easily lead to misinterpreting these trading activities as long-term positions.
Precisely because it is incomplete, Form 13F is more like a window into institutional sentiment than a definitive report.
Seeing Mubadala, Abu Dhabi’s sovereign fund, increase its position while experiencing paper losses reveals the patience of sovereign capital; seeing Brown University hold steady despite drawdowns demonstrates long-term allocation discipline; seeing Harvard University reduce its Bitcoin exposure and exit the Ethereum ETF shows university funds’ genuine sensitivity to volatility; seeing JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and Jane Street continue adjusting their exposure on certain products reveals that Wall Street still treats crypto ETFs as a category that needs to remain on the shelf and be continuously repriced.
Original link
Click to learn about the open positions at BlockBeats
Welcome to the official community of律动 BlockBeats:
Telegram subscription group: https://t.me/theblockbeats
Telegram group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App
Official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia