Institutional Shift? Jane Street Turns Toward Ethereum After Reducing Bitcoin ETF Exposure

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-05-16Last updated on 2026-05-16

Abstract

Institutional investors are increasingly shifting focus from Bitcoin to Ethereum, with Jane Street notably reducing its Bitcoin ETF exposure while increasing its stake in ETH. This reflects a broader trend of institutions viewing Ethereum not just as an altcoin but as a distinct macro asset, driven by its growing role in DeFi and tokenization. Concurrently, Ethereum's network recorded its highest realized profits in three weeks, with $74.58 million in profits despite a recent price dip, as earlier accumulators sold into the downturn. On-chain data shows increased transaction volume and distribution activity at around $2,241, suggesting cautious investor sentiment. Analysts advise monitoring for deeper realized losses as a potential bottoming signal before considering aggressive positions.

For long, Bitcoin has remained the major target for institutional investors, but lately Ethereum is turning up strongly on their radars too. Many companies have begun to accumulate the leading altcoin at a significant rate, with some even dumping a portion of their Bitcoin holdings to buy more ETH.

Jane Street Shows Interest In Ethereum

As the crypto sector expands, the market is now experiencing a major shift in institutional investors’ interest. A number of companies are starting to increase their exposure to Ethereum while reducing their exposure to Bitcoin.

Jane Street is changing the way it is exposed to cryptocurrencies by increasing its stake in Ethereum and decreasing its holdings in Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). The move is gaining attention throughout the crypto market because it may represent shifting institutional preferences in the market for digital assets.

Deci, a market commentator, stated that Jane Street’s addition of ETH funds and reduction of exposure to BTC ETFs does not automatically make them ETH maximis. However, it does point to a growing and real rotation.

Large investors are becoming more interested in ETH, possibly due to its growing role in Decentralized Finance (DeFi), tokenization, and blockchain infrastructure, even though Bitcoin has long dominated institutional portfolios. According to the expert, institutional investors are beginning to treat ETH less like an altcoin and more like a separate macro asset next to Bitcoin and Gold.

In the expert’s view, BTC was the first digital store of value, but now ETH is becoming the financial infrastructure trade. Such a distinction, he believes, is where the market keeps underpricing the altcoin.

ETH Network Sees A Large Realized Profit Margin

After a brief price rebound, Ethereum has witnessed a surge in realized profits, indicating a shift in market dynamics. On Thursday, Santiment, a market intelligence and on-chain data analytics platform, reported that ETH registered its highest network realized profits in 3 weeks.

This may appear counterintuitive to see a spike of $74.58 million in realized profits because ETH’s price has fallen by 5.5% over the past 3 days. However, this trend is linked to investors’ behavior during the price action. ETH holders with a much lower cost basis are selling into the dip.

While ETH traded below $2,000 throughout much of February and March, savvy traders accumulated despite war fears and heightened uncertainty in crypto at the time. Furthermore, wallets that were collected during those months are still profitable despite this mid-May downturn. Meanwhile, many have chosen to sell while they believe they still have a chance to make money.

Source: Chart from Santiment on X

Santiment also highlighted an increase in the volume of on-chain movement on the Ethereum blockchain. The 4-hour candles exhibit significant price compression at $2,241, indicating increased distribution activity on the chain. Historically, more transactions have led to more realized P&L events. When volume is increased, even little individual profits add up to significant network-level totals.

Based on current ETH trader behavior, Santiment noted that investors are leaning cautious. However, this does not mean new investors should be bearish. Rather, the platform suggests watching for deeper realized losses as a potential bottoming signal and avoiding aggressive positioning until the distribution phase shows clear signs of ending.

ETH trading at $2,265 on the 1D chart | Source: ETHUSDT on Tradingview.com

Related Questions

QWhat significant shift in institutional investment is highlighted in the article regarding Jane Street?

AThe article highlights that Jane Street is increasing its exposure to Ethereum while reducing its holdings in Bitcoin ETFs, indicating a shift in institutional interest towards Ethereum.

QAccording to market commentator Deci, what does Jane Street's move signify about institutional preferences?

AAccording to Deci, while Jane Street's move does not automatically make them 'ETH maximalists,' it points to a growing and real rotation in institutional investment, with Ethereum being treated more as a separate macro asset alongside Bitcoin and Gold.

QWhat on-chain data did Santiment report regarding Ethereum, and why was it considered counterintuitive?

ASantiment reported that Ethereum registered its highest network realized profits in 3 weeks, with a spike of $74.58 million. This was considered counterintuitive because ETH's price had fallen by 5.5% over the preceding 3 days.

QWhat behavior among ETH holders explains the surge in realized profits despite a price drop?

AThe surge in realized profits is explained by ETH holders with a much lower cost basis selling into the price dip. These savvy traders had accumulated ETH when it traded below $2,000 in February and March, so they were still profitable and chose to sell during the mid-May downturn.

QWhat current trader behavior does Santiment note, and what advice does it give to new investors based on this?

ASantiment notes that current ETH investors are leaning cautious. It advises new investors to watch for deeper realized losses as a potential bottoming signal and to avoid aggressive positioning until the distribution phase shows clear signs of ending.

Related Reads

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit51m ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit51m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手51m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手51m ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit2h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片