Original Author: KarenZ, Foresight News
The most noteworthy aspect of Q1 is not how much the price fell, but how institutions navigated through this pullback.
If you only look at the market performance, crypto ETFs in Q1 2026 did not have it easy. Bitcoin and Ethereum faced pressure during the quarter, the book value of spot ETFs generally declined, and many positions, even if not sold, would look difficult by the quarter's end. However, the truly interesting part of a downturn is never the NAV curve itself, but what different types of institutions did on the same pullback chart.
By the latest round of 13F filings disclosed as of mid-May 2026, the market can already see a group of institutions' holdings as of the quarter-end, March 31, 2026. University endowments, large investment banks, sovereign wealth funds, market makers, and wealth management firms have provided several starkly different answers.
Those Reducing Holdings: Risk Contraction First
First, let's look at the reducers.
Harvard Management, which manages Harvard University's endowment and related financial assets, is one of the most typical 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 dropping from about $266 million to about $117 million. Meanwhile, its holdings in ETHA (iShares Ethereum Trust), which it still held last quarter, were completely exited this quarter. This indicates that Harvard is not merely reacting to price pullbacks but is actively compressing its public exposure to Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs.
This change in holdings carries another layer of meaning. Harvard did not turn entirely defensive overall but instead reallocated part of its portfolio to assets related to the AI and computing power chain, increasing holdings in stocks like NVIDIA, Broadcom, and TSMC. Taken together, these moves look more like a structural rebalancing act of "reducing crypto, adding AI," rather than a comprehensive risk reduction.
Goldman Sachs's strategy is broadly similar, albeit with more complex tactics. Comparing the latest two 13F reports, Goldman Sachs still held approximately $690 million worth of IBIT and about $25.18 million worth of FBTC (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund) at the end of Q1 2026, with both showing reductions from the previous quarter. More noteworthy than the simple reduction is its position structure: Goldman holds spot, call options, and put options on IBIT simultaneously, indicating this is not merely a directional bet but carries clear trading and hedging characteristics.
Goldman's handling of Ethereum was even more aggressive. It not only completely exited its position in the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (holding a value of $394 million at the end of Q4 2025) but also significantly reduced its spot position in iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) by about 74%, leaving a remaining position of about $114 million. Additionally, it newly acquired a position worth approximately $66.885 million in the iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs has liquidated all its XRP and Solana-related ETFs. By the end of Q4 2025, it held a combined value of about $152 million in XRP ETFs from Bitwise, Franklin Templeton, Grayscale, and 21shares, and also liquidated all Solana ETFs/Trusts from Grayscale, Bitwise, and Fidelity (valued at $109 million at the end of Q4 2025).
Regarding crypto-related stocks, Goldman Sachs increased its position in Circle by 249% to around $140 million, and its position in Galaxy Digital also rose by 205% (to $41.48 million). Holdings in Coinbase (+65%), Robinhood (+35%), and PayPal also increased. Meanwhile, it reduced holdings in Strategy and Riot Platforms. Overall, this resembles an internal rotation of "compressing ETF risk and shifting to selected individual stocks."
Among hedge funds, Millennium Management also gave a similar signal. Publicly compiled data shows 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 synchronously (by about 34.3%), indicating a clear reduction in exposure to both Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs.
London-based hedge fund manager Capula Management Ltd went even further. As of December 30, 2025, it held $470 million worth of IBIT, $160 million worth of FBTC, $207 million worth of ETHA, and $61.43 million worth of FETH. However, its latest 13F report shows these ETFs have been completely liquidated. Concurrently, Capula Management Ltd has also completely liquidated its Coinbase position (retaining a small options position).
Standing Pat Is Also an Attitude
The second category is those standing pat.
Brown University's IBIT holdings remain at 212,500 shares, with no increase or decrease. Calculated by disclosed market value, this position fell from about $10.551 million at the end of 2025 to about $8.164 million at the end of Q1 2026. Such university endowments do not directly convert a quarter's price volatility into trading instructions, instead emphasizing portfolio discipline and long-term allocation rhythm.
Dartmouth College's handling of crypto assets in Q1 2026 resembles a mild expansion rather than an aggressive rotation. Comparing its 13F with the previous quarter, the college retained its core Bitcoin ETF positions. The share count of IBIT remained largely unchanged, though the book value dropped from over $10 million to about $7.7 million due to the Q1 price pullback. For Ethereum exposure, it performed a product switch, replacing the previous Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust with the staking-enabled Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF, holding about 178,100 shares. It also newly established a position in the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF, approximately 304,803 shares, with a book value of about $3.3 million.
A Different Playbook: Buying the Dip
The third category consists of those increasing their holdings against the trend.
The Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Mubadala is one of the most prominent names. Its IBIT holdings increased from 12,702,323 shares to 14,721,917 shares, a rise of about 15.9%. However, even though the share count increased, the quarter-end holding value still fell from about $631 million to about $566 million. This set of numbers is quite telling. The act of increasing holdings does not automatically lead to profits, especially when the market is still in a downtrend. Adding to positions first brings greater exposure, and only secondly might it bring higher future elasticity.
The moves by JPMorgan Chase can also be understood within this logic. The latest 13F data shows JPMorgan increased its IBIT holdings from about 3.028 million shares to about 8.30 million shares, a surge of 174%. It also increased exposure to some FBTC, BITB, and Ethereum ETFs. Judging by the share count change, it has clearly become more active; but this does not mean it has locked in excess returns during this volatility. For major banks, increasing ETF holdings is often about expanding the product shelf, meeting client allocation needs, and balancing liquidity and book risk, not just a one-way bullish bet.
The position changes at Wells Fargo are also worth examining separately. Comparing the two periods, the bank retained its core IBIT position while increasing allocations to products like BITB and the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust. More notably, it significantly increased its Ethereum ETF exposure. Its ETHA holdings rose from about 672.6k shares to about 1.10 million shares, and its ETHW holdings also increased. In other words, Wells Fargo adopted a strategy of "retaining Bitcoin core positions and increasing Ethereum weight."
Market maker Jane Street showcases another typical style. Comparing the two 13F periods, it significantly reduced its Bitcoin spot ETF exposure in Q1, with IBIT holdings dropping from about 20.30 million shares to about 5.90 million shares, and FBTC also showing a clear decline. However, concurrently, it newly added about $82 million in Ethereum ETF exposure. On the crypto stock side, Jane Street increased holdings in Galaxy Digital (8746%), Circle (1162%), Coinbase (+14%), BitMine (+47%), and others. This combination looks more like a typical trading rebalancing: reducing Bitcoin ETFs, adding Ethereum ETFs, while seeking higher elasticity on the individual stock side.
Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana: Institutions Are Making Finer Risk Rankings
Another signal worth unpacking from this round of 13Fs is that institutional attitudes towards BTC ETFs, ETH ETFs, and even Solana ETFs are no longer uniform. The more pertinent question now is: which crypto asset are institutions prepared to keep as a core position, which one to place in an elastic position, and which one to simply remove for now.
Taking Harvard Management as an example, while it reduced IBIT, it completely exited ETHA. This resembles a risk ranking. The Bitcoin ETF still retains a relatively core position, while the Ethereum ETF was prioritized for reduction in the portfolio rebalancing.
Goldman Sachs's approach also indicates that large financial institutions are taking this ranking to an even more refined level. It still maintained a relatively large Bitcoin ETF exposure in Q1, but its contraction of Ethereum-related products was noticeably faster, while it essentially liquidated XRP and Solana-related ETFs. Taken together, Goldman is re-concentrating its portfolio onto the layer of assets it considers most liquid, easiest to hedge, and most easily incorporated into institutional risk models. Bitcoin here looks more like a "base position," Ethereum falls into the compressible category, and products like Solana and XRP are closer to peripheral experimental positions. Once market volatility amplifies, these are often the first to be cut.
On the other hand, Wells Fargo and Dartmouth College present completely different answers. Wells Fargo actively increased the weight of Ethereum ETFs, suggesting that within its internal framework, Ethereum is more like a secondary position worth increasing allocation during a pullback to capture potential upside. Dartmouth College's strategy is even more representative: it left its Bitcoin ETF core untouched but extended its new elastic exposure to Solana-related ETFs, especially those with staking attributes.
13F Gives the Market a Snapshot, But Also Leaves Blanks
This is also where the most restraint is needed when looking at institutional holdings.
13F filings allow the outside world to see, under a unified standard, how mainstream institutions allocate to crypto ETFs. But they also have very clear boundaries. First, there is a time lag. What investors see in May is only a snapshot of institutions' positions as of March 31, the quarter-end. If significant adjustments were made in Q2, the tables won't show it in advance. Second, 13F only shows holdings, not the actual purchase cost. A decline in an institution's holding value over a quarter does not necessarily mean an overall loss, as it might have bought earlier, or may have reduced and re-added positions during the quarter.
Furthermore, for institutions like Goldman Sachs, positions in spot ETFs are often overlaid with options, hedging, and market-making related positions. Looking at the table alone can easily mistake trading behavior for a long-term stance.
Yet, precisely because it is incomplete, the 13F is more like a window into institutional sentiment, not a conclusion table. Seeing Abu Dhabi's Mubadala increase holdings while its book value declined shows the patience of sovereign wealth. Seeing Brown University stand pat while enduring a pullback shows long-term allocation discipline. Seeing Harvard University reduce Bitcoin and exit Ethereum ETFs reveals the real sensitivity of university endowments to volatility. And seeing JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and Jane Street continue to adjust exposure on certain products indicates that Wall Street still treats crypto ETFs as a category that needs to remain on the shelf and be constantly repriced.
