Institutional ETF Holdings Diverge Amid Q1 2026 Crypto Market Volatility

Original author: KarenZ, Foresight News

What’s most worth watching in the first quarter isn’t how much prices have dropped, but how institutions navigate through this downturn.

Looking solely at market performance, the first quarter of 2026 was no easy ride for crypto ETFs. Bitcoin and Ethereum faced pressure during the quarter, leading to widespread declines in the notional market value of spot ETFs; even positions that weren’t sold looked far from impressive by quarter-end. But the real insight from a downturn never lies in the net value curve itself—it’s in the actions different types of institutions took across the same drawdown chart.

As of the latest 13F filing 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 responses.

First, let's look at the reducers.

Harvard Management, which manages Harvard University’s endowment and related financial assets, is one of the most representative examples in this round. According to its filed 13F report, its 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 approximately $117 million. Meanwhile, its previous position in ETHA (iShares Ethereum Trust), held in the prior quarter, has been fully exited this quarter. This indicates that Harvard is not merely reacting to price corrections but is actively reducing its public exposure to spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs.

This change in holdings carries another implication. Harvard did not broadly shift to a defensive stance; instead, it reallocated part of its portfolio toward assets related to AI and computing power, increasing positions in companies such as NVIDIA, Broadcom, and TSMC. Viewed together, these moves more closely resemble a structural rebalancing—reducing crypto exposure while increasing AI exposure—rather than a broad risk reduction.

Goldman Sachs’s strategy is broadly similar, but more sophisticated. Comparing its most recent 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 stance on Ethereum, not only liquidating its entire position in the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (valued at $394 million as of Q4 2025), but also significantly reducing its spot position in the iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) 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 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, and also fully exited all its Solana ETFs/trusts from Grayscale, Bitwise, and Fidelity, valued at $109 million as of the end of Q4 2025.

In the crypto stock space, 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.

In hedge funds, Millennium Management also issued a similar signal. Public records show that 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.

Capula Management Ltd., a hedge fund management company headquartered in London, UK, 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 it has fully liquidated these ETFs. Additionally, Capula Management Ltd. has fully exited its position in Coinbase, retaining only a small options position.

The second group consists of those who are holding steady.

Brown University’s IBIT holdings remain unchanged at 212,500 shares. Based on disclosed market value, this position decreased from approximately $10.551 million at the end of 2025 to approximately $8.164 million at the end of Q1 2026. Such university endowments do not directly translate quarterly price fluctuations into trading instructions; instead, they prioritize portfolio discipline and long-term allocation timing.

Dartmouth College’s handling of crypto assets in Q1 2026 resembled a modest expansion 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 price corrections during the quarter, the notional value declined from over $10 million to approximately $7.7 million. For its Ethereum exposure, the college switched from the Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust to the Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF, which includes staking features, holding approximately 178,100 shares. Additionally, it established a new position in the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF, acquiring about 304,803 shares with a notional value of approximately $3.3 million.

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, a rise of approximately 15.9%. However, despite the increase in share count, the market value of its position at quarter-end declined from approximately $631 million to about $566 million. These figures speak volumes: increasing positions does not automatically lead to profits, especially in a market still in a retracement phase—adding exposure first increases risk, and only potentially leads to greater upside later.

JPMorgan’s actions can also be understood within this framework. 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 raising its exposure to select FBTC, BITB, and Ethereum ETFs. From the share volume changes, it clearly appears more aggressive; however, this does not mean it has already locked in excess gains during this volatility. For large institutions, increasing ETF positions often involves expanding product offerings, meeting client allocation needs, and balancing liquidity and book risk—not merely taking a one-way bullish stance.

Wells Fargo’s position changes are also worth examining separately. Comparing the prior and current holdings, the bank maintained its core position in IBIT while increasing allocations to products such as BITB and the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust. More notably, it significantly increased its exposure to Ethereum ETFs: ETHA holdings rose from approximately 672,600 shares to about 1.1 million shares, with ETHW holdings also being increased simultaneously. In other words, Wells Fargo is adopting a strategy of “maintaining a Bitcoin core position while increasing Ethereum’s weighting.”

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: its holdings in IBIT dropped from approximately 20.3 million shares to about 5.9 million shares, and FBTC also declined noticeably. At the same time, it added approximately $82 million in exposure to Ethereum ETFs. Among crypto-related stocks, Jane Street increased its positions in Galaxy Digital (+8,746%), Circle (+1,162%), Coinbase (+14%), and BitMine (+47%). This portfolio shift resembles a classic tactical rebalancing: reducing Bitcoin ETF exposure while increasing Ethereum ETF exposure, while simultaneously seeking higher elasticity among individual equities.

Another notable signal in this round of 13F filings is that institutional attitudes toward BTC ETFs, ETH ETFs, and even Solana ETFs are no longer aligned. 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—this reflects a prioritization of risk. Bitcoin ETFs remain in a more central role, whereas Ethereum ETFs were prioritized for elimination during portfolio rebalancing.

Goldman Sachs’ approach also illustrates that large financial institutions are pushing this hierarchy to its extreme. While it maintained a significant Bitcoin ETF exposure in the first quarter, it rapidly reduced its positions in Ethereum-related products and essentially eliminated its holdings in XRP and Solana-related ETFs. Taken together, Goldman Sachs is refocusing its portfolio on assets it views as having the highest liquidity, easiest hedging capabilities, and greatest compatibility with institutional risk models. Here, Bitcoin functions more like a “core position,” Ethereum as a “compressible position,” while products like Solana and XRP resemble marginal experimental positions—those most likely to be cut first when market volatility increases.

On the other hand, Wells Fargo and Dartmouth College presented entirely different responses. 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 maintained its core Bitcoin ETF holdings while allocating new flexibility to Solana-related ETFs, particularly those with staking features.

This is also the area where you most need to exercise restraint when analyzing institutional holdings.

13F filings allow outsiders to see how major institutions allocate their assets to crypto ETFs on a consistent basis. However, they have clear limitations. First, there is a time lag: what investors see in May reflects only the institutional holdings as of March 31, the end of the first quarter. Any significant portfolio adjustments made during the second quarter will not appear until the next filing. Second, 13F filings show only holdings, not the actual cost basis. A decline in the value of an institution’s position over a quarter does not necessarily indicate an overall loss, as the institution may have purchased the assets at a lower price earlier or may have reduced and then re-established its position during the quarter.

Moreover, for institutions like Goldman Sachs, positions in options, hedging, and market-making activities often accompany spot ETFs; viewing only the table may lead to misinterpreting these trading activities as long-term positions.

Precisely because it is incomplete, Form 13F functions less like a final report and more like a window into institutional sentiment. Observing Mubadala, Abu Dhabi’s sovereign fund, increasing its position while its book value declines reveals the patience of sovereign capital. Seeing Brown University hold steady despite drawdowns demonstrates long-term allocation discipline. Noting Harvard University reducing its Bitcoin exposure and exiting the Ethereum ETF highlights the true sensitivity of university endowments to volatility. And watching JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Jane Street continue adjusting their exposures to certain products shows that Wall Street still treats crypto ETFs as an asset class that must remain on the shelf, continuously repriced.