Vanguard, BlackRock lead the ETF wave as market remains in ‘extreme fear’

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-02-26Last updated on 2026-02-26

The crypto market is sending mixed signals right now. On the price charts, things look better. At press time, the total market value had risen by 3.36% and was back to around $2.26 trillion. However, among investors, confidence is still very low.

Despite the prices going up, the Crypto Fear and Greed Index is still stuck in “Extreme Fear.” This shows that many people are still worried after the recent ups and downs. Instead of feeling excited, they are afraid the recovery won’t last.

And yet, according to LunarCrush, financial firms have dominated social media conversations over the past 24 hours.

This surge in attention around major financial firms can be closely tied to the growing influence of ETFs in both traditional markets and crypto.

Vanguard and BlackRock steal the spotlight

At the top of the list was Vanguard with 11.73k mentions. Social media chatter around Vanguard spiked by 146%, pushing daily mentions to an all-time high of 13.4k.

The post noted,

“Engagements are up 481% from the daily average.”

This was mainly because of massive inflows into its S&P 500 ETF, VOO. With over $30 billion added this year alone, Vanguard has become a key entry point for investors seeking stability.

Close behind was BlackRock with 9.27k mentions, whose Bitcoin [BTC] ETF has become the main gateway for institutional money into crypto.

Additionally, other sentiments around BlackRock are also adding to the hype.

“BLK is the firm people either trust with their retirement or point to when explaining why corporations behave badly. Both crowds were loud today.”

JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs trail behind

JPMorgan Chase has also gained attention with 8.2k mentions, as investors look for stability beyond crypto ETFs. Over 282+ spikes suggest fresh news, likely comments from CEO Jamie Dimon or new macro positioning, sparking renewed attention.

On the contrary, Goldman Sachs saw a noticeable drop in mentions, making it the only top-five firm losing social traction. This usually happens when market sentiment turns cautious.

Meanwhile, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) stood out as the only venture capital firm among trillion-dollar institutions. Its steady discussion was likely tied to its AI and crypto investments, along with visibility from co-founder Marc Andreessen.

Other major firms like Apollo Global Management, Fidelity Investments, Galaxy Digital, Blackstone, Temasek Holdings, KKR, Pantera Capital, and Bridgewater Associates were also part of the broader conversation.

Notably, Jane Street and Third Point saw unusually large spikes in attention, likely driven by specific trading or regulatory developments. Finally, Pantera’s rise reflected sustained momentum in crypto-focused discussions.

Social sentiment may be driving investor sentiment

The aforementioned data should be read within context though. Just recently, Google Trends revealed that global searches for “crypto” were at their lowest level in over a year. In August 2025, interest was at its peak. However, at press time, it had dropped to just 25.

That’s not all either as the “Bitcoin going to zero” phrase reached its highest level ever in February too.

Simply put, while most people are rushing for the exits, the world’s biggest money managers are quietly settling in and preparing for the next phase.


Final Summary

  • “Extreme Fear” reflects emotional exhaustion among retail investors, not necessarily market collapse.
  • Social media data suggested that attention may be shifting away from tokens and towards the institutions controlling access.

Related Reads

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

**From Survival to Accelerated Growth: Zcash Founder Details the 3-Year Rise** Three years ago, Zcash (ZEC) was a struggling pioneer in privacy technology, with a price near $30, low shielded supply (11%), and a community mired in governance disputes. Today, ZEC trades around $600, with over 31% of its supply (~$3B) in user-controlled shielded pools. This transformation resulted from breaking key constraints. First, **governance shackles were removed**. The old model guaranteed funding to two entities (ECC and ZF) regardless of performance, creating a monopoly. In 2024, ECC rejected further direct funding, forcing a change. The NU6 upgrade ended direct funding, allocating 8% to community grants and 12% to a protocol-controlled treasury for retroactive rewards, expiring in 2028 unless renewed by overwhelming consensus. The entities also relinquished their trademark-based veto power, freeing community governance. Second, the **product focus shifted** from pure cryptography to user growth. Previously, engineering excelled at privacy tech but failed to attract users. In early 2024, the team (later ZODL) pivoted to building products users wanted, like the Zodl wallet (default privacy, hardware support, cross-asset swaps). This drove shielded supply to grow over 400% in ZEC terms, with 86.5% of recent transactions being shielded, representing real user adoption. Third, the **narrative evolved** from the limiting "privacy coin" label to "unstoppable private money." This clarified Zcash's value proposition: a Bitcoin-like monetary policy with verifiable private payments via advanced cryptography. This structural narrative—protocol (Zcash), asset (ZEC), gateway (Zodl)—enabled broader exchange listings, institutional interest, and ETF filings. Finally, **organizational constraints were broken**. In early 2026, the ECC team left its non-profit structure after disputes over control, forming Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL). ZODL raised $25M from top VCs (Paradigm, a16z, etc.), gaining the capital and agility of a startup to scale consumer products. Current metrics show strong momentum: social discussion volume for ZEC surged 15,245% in a year, with 81% positive sentiment. The focus is now on enhancing user experience (Zodl wallet), scalability (Tachyon project targeting Visa-level throughput with 25-second blocks), and post-quantum security (quantum-recoverable wallets coming soon). Zcash is positioned to become faster, more usable, scalable, and quantum-resistant.

marsbit8m ago

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

marsbit8m ago

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbit26m ago

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbit26m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片