Strategy Watch #2

insights.glassnodePubblicato 2026-03-24Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-24

Introduzione

Strategy Watch #2 provides institutional analysis of digital asset fund performance and allocation trends. The report covers six key areas: institutional capital flows, fund performance, macro strategies, on-chain vault returns, manager sentiment, and allocation updates. In February and early March, Bitcoin and Ethereum saw significant net outflows (-$9.6B and -$3.2B respectively), while stablecoins attracted inflows (+$6.2B), suggesting a defensive shift toward lower-risk assets. BTC ETF flows turned positive in March, though institutional conviction remains cautious. DeFi Total Value Locked (TVL) on Ethereum declined sharply, with peak outflows of -$23.7B in February, indicating reduced participation in on-chain yield strategies. CME basis yields continued to tighten, reflecting lower institutional leverage and softer derivatives demand. The report also highlights performance trends, with only one strategy type generating positive returns in February. Over 300 managers shared their three-month market outlook, and a new $750M fund of funds was announced.

The full report is freely available in PDF format.

Download PDF version

Welcome to Strategy Watch #2

Strategy Watch was built to address a clear demand for high-signal, impartial analysis of fund-level performance and allocation trends in digital assets.

The inaugural edition confirmed this demand, reaching a broad audience of key decision makers, from leading global asset managers, hedge funds, major investment banks, top-tier crypto-native funds and Fund of Funds.

Building on this early momentum, our objective is straightforward — to make Strategy Watch a must-read monthly publication for the digital asset investment community.

This publication is strengthened by direct input from market participants. Funds and allocators that contribute data and insights help shape a more complete and valuable view of the landscape.

If you have insights, data, or allocation updates worth sharing, we welcome your contribution.

Present your latest initiatives and updates to a curated audience of institutional allocators.

Share updates ↗

Inside the Latest Strategy Watch

The report is structured across six core sections, each focused on a distinct dimension of institutional activity in digital assets:

01 Institutional Flow Monitor |

02 Fund and SMA Performance | February was a bloodbath, check this section to see the only strategy type that returned positively last month.

03 Strategy Deep Dive: Macro Strategies | Hear firsthand from a macro portfolio manager on how they are navigating the current geopolitical challenges. 

04 On-chain Vault Performance | Are ETH curators underperforming ETH staking yield?

05 Manager Monitor | Find out how more than 300 managers are expecting the crypto market to perform over the next three months.

06 Allocation Updates | New USD 750m Fund of Funds is launching. Check this section to learn more.

in partnership with

The Premier Digital Assets Allocator Platform. Learn more


Institutional Flow Monitor

Capital flows into BTC and ETH remained deeply negative through February and into March, with stablecoins turning net positive in early March as investors rotated toward lower-risk positioning.

Bitcoin and Ethereum continued to experience sustained net outflows, with BTC and ETH capital flows registering -$9.6B and -$3.2B. However, stablecoins broke from the broader negative trend, flipping to +$6.2B in net inflows. Rather than signaling a broad return of risk appetite, this rotation likely reflects a defensive repositioning, with capital migrating into dollar-denominated on-chain instruments while conviction in spot crypto assets remains under pressure heading into mid-Q1 2026.

ETF & DAT Net Flows

After sustained February outflows, BTC ETF and DAT flows returned to positive, while ETH institutional flows showed early signs of stabilization.

After sustained February outflows, Bitcoin ETF and DAT flows returned to positive territory, recovering to +28k BTC and +46.8k BTC respectively. Ethereum flows were more measured, with ETF flows near neutral at +46.5k ETH and DAT flows stabilizing at +295.8k ETH. While the directional shift is encouraging, the recovery remains early-stage and uneven, and it would be premature to characterize this as a broad resumption of institutional conviction.

DeFi TVL & Stablecoin Cap

DeFi TVL on Ethereum saw sharp contraction through February before showing early signs of stabilization in March, though the broader declining trend since August 2025 remains intact.

Total Value Locked on Ethereum recorded peak outflows of -$23.7B per month in February, implying sustained withdrawal by larger allocators from on-chain activities such as liquidity provisioning and yield strategies. This slowdown alone is insufficient to signal a reversal, and diminished conviction in DeFi risk-adjusted returns continues to point to shallower liquidity depth across the ecosystem.

CME Basis Yield

CME Basis Yield compressed even further in February, reinforcing waning incentives for market-neutral strategies compared to January.

The monthly dollar value captured by institutions via cash-and-carry trades declined notably for both Bitcoin and Ethereum, building on the sharp compression seen since August 2025. This tightening basis reflects reduced leverage deployment, softer futures demand, and continued pullback in balance-sheet commitment amid tighter liquidity conditions persisting from January into early March 2026.


Disclaimer: This report does not provide any investment advice. All data is provided for information and educational purposes only. No investment decision shall be based on the information provided here and you are solely responsible for your own investment decisions.
Exchange balances presented are derived from Glassnode’s comprehensive database of address labels, which are amassed through both officially published exchange information and proprietary clustering algorithms. While we strive to ensure the utmost accuracy in representing exchange balances, it is important to note that these figures might not always encapsulate the entirety of an exchange’s reserves, particularly when exchanges refrain from disclosing their official addresses. We urge users to exercise caution and discretion when utilizing these metrics. Glassnode shall not be held responsible for any discrepancies or potential inaccuracies. Please read our Transparency Notice when using exchange data.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the primary purpose of the Strategy Watch publication?

AStrategy Watch was built to address a clear demand for high-signal, impartial analysis of fund-level performance and allocation trends in digital assets, aiming to be a must-read monthly publication for the digital asset investment community.

QWhich was the only strategy type that returned positively in February according to the report?

AThe report indicates that readers should check the 'Fund and SMA Performance' section to see the only strategy type that returned positively in February, though the specific strategy name is not stated in the provided text.

QWhat was the trend in capital flows for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) through February and into March?

ACapital flows into BTC and ETH remained deeply negative, with BTC and ETH capital flows registering -$9.6B and -$3.2B, respectively.

QHow did stablecoin capital flows behave in contrast to BTC and ETH in early March?

AStablecoins broke from the broader negative trend, flipping to +$6.2B in net inflows, which likely reflects a defensive repositioning into lower-risk, dollar-denominated on-chain instruments.

QWhat does the sharp compression in CME Basis Yield indicate about market conditions?

AThe compression in CME Basis Yield reflects reduced leverage deployment, softer futures demand, and a continued pullback in balance-sheet commitment amid tighter liquidity conditions, indicating waning incentives for market-neutral strategies.

Letture associate

Interpreting Investment Opportunities in the Age of Great Navigation, Invesco Great Wall Fund Releases '2026 Report on Chinese Enterprises Going Global'

Invesco Great Wall Fund has released its "2026 China Corporate Globalization Report," titled "The 'Great Navigation Era' of Chinese Enterprises." The report analyzes the new trends and investment opportunities as Chinese companies expand globally, moving from simple product exports to comprehensive overseas operations involving services, branding, and local production. Driven by factors like trade friction, the pursuit of higher profit margins abroad, and policy support, globalization is becoming essential for Chinese companies. The report outlines an evolution: from early product export ("Globalization 1.0") to the current "Globalization 2.0," characterized by overseas capacity, capital goods investment, consumer brand expansion, and service exports. Chinese firms' competitive advantages are highlighted, including a vast engineer talent pool, low-cost and robust infrastructure, and complete industrial clusters. Specific sectors with significant出海 potential are identified: * **Capital Goods** (e.g., engineering machinery, power equipment): Benefiting from global demand, especially in Belt & Road markets and the AI-driven power grid upgrade cycle. * **Consumer Brands**: Transitioning from cost to brand advantage, leveraging供应链 efficiency. * **Technology & Innovation**: Including AI applications, optical modules within global tech supply chains, and new energy vehicles focusing on local production. * **Pharmaceuticals**: Chinese biotech firms are becoming preferred partners for global pharma, with potential for breakthrough drugs in areas like oncology and weight loss. The report concludes that corporate globalization represents a sustained, core theme for China's capital markets, though companies must navigate challenges like geopolitics and localization.

marsbit6 min fa

Interpreting Investment Opportunities in the Age of Great Navigation, Invesco Great Wall Fund Releases '2026 Report on Chinese Enterprises Going Global'

marsbit6 min fa

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit46 min fa

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit46 min fa

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit53 min fa

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit53 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片