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

Trending Cryptos

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

Collateral Dollars: How Does a 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Form?

Collateral Dollars: How Does a "Second Layer of Dollars" Form on Top of Stablecoins? Most assume stablecoins replicate Eurodollar functions, expanding the offshore dollar system. However, stablecoins primarily replace specific functions like operational dollar balances for settlement. They do not inherently create new dollar credit; they substitute existing claims. The key question is: what happens when financial intermediaries use stablecoins as collateral to create a new layer of dollar-denominated claims? This "collateral dollar" channel operates through secured lending, not direct money creation. A money-like event only occurs when a liability issued against the controlled stablecoin is funded, rolled over, or accepted at near-par value by another balance sheet. The discount (haircut) prices the gap between "effective control over the token" and "reliable convertibility to bank dollars." Elasticity stems not from the stablecoin itself but from the liability issued against it and the willingness of third-party balance sheets to treat that liability as a near-par asset. Compared to the traditional Eurodollar system—where elasticity originates from bank deposit creation—the stablecoin collateral chain is structurally different. Eurodollar deposits are credit-expansive from inception. Stablecoins are initially substitutive; elasticity emerges later if an intermediary's liability against them gains monetary acceptance. Stablecoins disrupt specific tiers of the offshore dollar system, mainly replacing operational settlement balances. They do not replace the need for full dollar balance-sheet capacity (credit lines, hedging, maturity transformation). For systemic impact, the second-layer liability must pass three tests: transferability, funding capacity, and monetary acceptance (being fundable or held at par by others). Pressure transmission also differs. In the Eurodollar system, stress moves up a hierarchy of claims. In a stablecoin collateral chain, the second-layer liability can lose its money-like status well before the underlying stablecoin faces a run, often triggered by haircut increases and margin calls that create a dynamic spiral of falling token prices and rising discounts. In conclusion, the "collateral dollar" is not the stablecoin itself. It is the second-layer liability issued against a controlled token balance that is willing to be funded and maintained at near-par value. Its existence depends on that liability surviving the leap from "token liquidity" to "bank dollar liquidity."

marsbit6m ago

Collateral Dollars: How Does a 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Form?

marsbit6m ago

Collateral Dollars: How the 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Takes Shape?

"Collateralized Dollars: How a 'Second Layer of Dollars' Forms on Top of Stablecoins" Most assume stablecoins replicate Eurodollars and expand the offshore dollar system, but this is not accurate. Stablecoins primarily replace certain functions within the existing system, especially operational dollar balances for daily settlement. The critical question is what happens when financial intermediaries create a new layer of dollar claims *on top of* stablecoins. This article explains how this new collateralized funding channel works. Stablecoins introduce tokenized private dollar claims. Even if issuers and reserves are within the US legal perimeter, their circulation and use as collateral can become economically "offshore." Enforceable control over collateral opens a secured credit channel but does not itself create a monetary claim. A true monetary event occurs only when another balance sheet funds, rolls over, or accepts a liability issued against the controlled token at near-par value. The discount prices the gap between "effective control over the token" and "reliable convertibility into bank dollars." Elasticity comes from the balance sheet issuing the liability against the token and from third-party willingness to treat that liability as a near-par asset. Collateralized Dollars are not the stablecoins themselves; they are the second-layer liability that another balance sheet is willing to issue, fund, and maintain at near-par against a controlled token balance. The Eurodollar system is a hierarchy of claims, with elasticity originating in expandable bank liabilities. In contrast, the stablecoin collateral chain starts with a tokenized asset. It gains systemic significance only when an intermediary's liability against that token is treated as money-like by other balance sheets. Key determining factors include: who has effective control, the legal/operational path to bank dollars, and whether the resulting claim can still be financed near-par under stress. Pressure in this new channel manifests differently. The upper-layer (intermediary) claim fails first, losing its money-like status, potentially while the underlying stablecoin remains solvent. Increased haircuts and forced sales can create a destructive feedback loop, widening the very gap the discount measures. In conclusion, the Eurodollar analogy has limits. Reserve quality supports the underlying token's solvency, but the leverage, credit, and liabilities built atop it face a separate test. Collateral eligibility is not monetary acceptance. Only when a claim built on stablecoins survives the leap from "token liquidity" to "bank dollar liquidity" do Collateralized Dollars truly exist.

链捕手12m ago

Collateral Dollars: How the 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Takes Shape?

链捕手12m ago

Don't Be Misled by the $1.25 Billion Cap: MicroStrategy's Three-Pronged Bitcoin Sale Pools Hide Massive Selling Pressure

Don't Be Misled by the $1.25B Cap: Strategy's Three-Tier Bitcoin Sales Plan Hides Massive Potential Selling Pressure Strategy recently sold 3,588 BTC (~$216M) to fund a dividend and replenish its dollar reserve, while claiming its $1.25B "reserve build" capacity remains fully available. This highlights a key nuance: the widely cited $1.25B limit applies only to sales for "Building" the reserve. Strategy's broader capital framework, however, allows Bitcoin sales for three primary purposes, each with different scales: 1. **Building the Reserve:** Selling BTC to raise up to $1.25B for the reserve. 2. **Covering Priority Share Expenses:** Selling BTC to pay dividends/interest or to replenish the reserve after such payments are made from it (no specified limit). 3. **Share Repurchase Funding:** Selling BTC to fund up to $1B each in convertible note and common stock repurchases (totaling $2B potential). Combined, just the capped "Build" and "Repurchase" channels could facilitate over $3B in Bitcoin sales, excluding the uncapped "Cover Expenses" channel. The accounting distinction between "Building" (adding cash before a payout) and "Replenishing" (adding cash after a payout) is operationally blurry but allows sales like the recent $216M transaction without touching the $1.25B "Build" quota. This gives Strategy significant flexibility. The move signifies a strategic shift: Strategy is transforming from a simple Bitcoin accumulator into an active capital manager, akin to a hedge fund. Bitcoin is now a financial lever to balance pressures between common stock, convertible notes, dollar reserves, and Bitcoin holdings. This creates inherent tensions—actions benefiting one part of the capital structure may harm another. Investors must understand that the potential Bitcoin sales are far greater than the surface-level $1.25B figure. Strategy has become a complex financial entity where every term in its disclosures matters. Betting on it now is a wager on its active capital management skill to navigate these internal contradictions without a systemic failure.

Foresight News19m ago

Don't Be Misled by the $1.25 Billion Cap: MicroStrategy's Three-Pronged Bitcoin Sale Pools Hide Massive Selling Pressure

Foresight News19m ago

When the Largest BTC Buyer Becomes a Seller, Who's Buying After MicroStrategy Sells 3,588 Bitcoin?

MicroStrategy, once the largest corporate buyer of Bitcoin, sold 3,588 BTC for approximately $216 million to fund its preferred stock dividends, marking a significant shift from buyer to seller. This move occurred after its market-to-NAV premium vanished, breaking its "print stock to buy Bitcoin" financial model. A roundtable discussion featuring Austin Campbell, Ram Ahluwalia, and Chris Perkins analyzed the implications. They noted that MicroStrategy's dominance has become a narrative bottleneck for the broader crypto market, with some speculating that Bitcoin's price might only surge significantly after the company's influence wanes. The conversation expanded to examine the capital structure conflict between traditional equity and crypto tokens, arguing that most current tokens will fail as they don't fit neatly into existing debt/equity frameworks. A "stablecoin war" was identified as a major trend, with entities like Tether, Robinhood, and the OUSD alliance competing. Tether's decision to abandon the European MiCA market highlights strategic divergences. The panelists argued that bank-issued stablecoins could revolutionize global finance by allowing US banks to capture net interest margins from international transactions, potentially making JPMorgan the first trillion-dollar bank. They concluded that while capital is currently being siphoned by AI/semiconductors, markets will eventually refocus on fundamentals and cash flow, which could benefit cryptocurrencies with real utility.

marsbit26m ago

When the Largest BTC Buyer Becomes a Seller, Who's Buying After MicroStrategy Sells 3,588 Bitcoin?

marsbit26m ago

Bitcoin’s path to $80K may hinge on THIS hidden trend

Bitcoin's potential path toward $80,000 is influenced by conflicting market signals. Data shows the Coinbase Bitcoin Premium Index has recorded its longest-ever streak of consecutive negative premiums, indicating muted institutional demand or net selling from U.S. institutions. While such a trend often signals short-term weakness, it doesn't necessarily forecast a long-term bear market. Additionally, a bearish crossover occurred in Bitcoin's Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL), with its short-term average falling below the longer-term average, suggesting declining investor profitability and waning market momentum. Historically, major bear market bottoms saw the 100-day NUPL drop below zero, but this cycle it remains positive, implying either an unprecedented bottom or a further decline is needed. Currently trading around $63,148, Bitcoin has seen weekly gains but remains below its May peak. Technical indicators present a mixed picture: the MACD shows bullish momentum, while the RSI signals bearish pressure. A positive development is the return of inflows to Bitcoin ETFs after eight weeks of outflows. Analysts hold divergent views; some highlight a key liquidity zone between $48,000-$50,000 where a market bottom could form, while others maintain a more optimistic long-term outlook. Ultimately, while some bullish signs exist, a strong push from institutional investors appears crucial for Bitcoin to challenge the $80,000 level.

ambcrypto1h ago

Bitcoin’s path to $80K may hinge on THIS hidden trend

ambcrypto1h ago

Trading

Spot

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