In the latest round of 13F filings, what are the differences in cryptocurrency ETFs, and how do institutions navigate through the first quarter's pullback?

Written by: KarenZ, Foresight News

What stands out in the first quarter is not how much the prices have fallen, but how institutions navigate through this round of pullback.

Looking solely at the market, the cryptocurrency ETFs in the first quarter of 2026 were not easy. Bitcoin and Ethereum faced pressure during the quarter, causing the market value of spot ETFs to generally drop, making it difficult for many positions to look good at the end of the quarter, even if they had not been sold. However, what is truly interesting about a round of declines is never the net value curve itself, but rather what different types of institutions are doing on the same pullback chart.

As of mid-May 2026, the latest round of 13F filings reveals that the market has seen a group of institutions' positions as of March 31, 2026. University funds, large investment banks, sovereign funds, market makers, and wealth management organizations provide several completely different answers.

Some Reduced Positions: First Constricting Risks

Let’s first look at those who reduced their positions.

Harvard Management, which manages Harvard University's endowment fund and related financial assets, is one of the most typical samples in this round. According to its submitted 13F report, the position 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 about 43%, corresponding to a market value drop from approximately $266 million to about $117 million. Meanwhile, it exited completely from ETHA (iShares Ethereum Trust), which it still held in the previous quarter. This indicates that Harvard is not merely responding to price pullbacks but is actively compressing its public exposure to Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs.

This change in holdings has another layer of meaning. Harvard has not entirely shifted to a defensive stance; instead, it has reallocated part of its positions to assets related to AI and computing power, increasing positions in companies such as NVIDIA, Broadcom, and TSMC. Viewed collectively, these actions are more akin to a structural rebalancing of "reducing crypto and increasing AI" rather than a broad risk contraction.

Goldman Sachs' strategy is also somewhat similar, though more complex. Comparing the last two 13F filings, Goldman Sachs still held approximately $690 million in IBIT and about $25.18 million in FBTC (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund) at the end of Q1 2026, both of which had declined from the previous quarter. More notably than simply reducing positions is its position structure: Goldman holds spot, call options, and put options on IBIT simultaneously, indicating that this is not merely a directional bet but also possesses significant trading and hedging attributes.

Goldman's handling of Ethereum is even more aggressive; it not only cleared out its holdings in the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (with a position value of $394 million at the end of Q4 2025) but also significantly reduced its position in the iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) by about 74%, leaving a remaining position of around $114 million. Additionally, it has taken a new position of $66.885 million in the iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF.

Meanwhile, Goldman has fully exited all XRP and Solana-related ETFs. It held a total of approximately $152 million in XRP ETFs from Bitwise, Franklin Templeton, Grayscale, and 21shares as of the end of Q4 2025 and has fully exited all Solana ETFs/trusts from Grayscale, Bitwise, and Fidelity (valued at $109 million at the end of Q4 2025).

In terms of cryptocurrency stocks, Goldman Sachs increased its position in Circle by 249%, raising it to about $140 million, and also increased its position in Galaxy Digital by 205% (to $41.48 million). Positions in Coinbase (+65%), Robinhood (+35%), and PayPal also saw increases; during the same period, it reduced holdings in Strategy and Riot Platforms. Overall, this resembles an internal rotation of "compressing ETF risk and shifting to selected individual stocks."

In the hedge fund sector, Millennium Management also provided similar signals. Public records show its IBIT position dropped from 34,334,000 shares to 19,287,000 shares, a reduction of about 43.8%; ETHA holdings also decreased simultaneously (down about 34.3%), indicating it has clearly lowered its exposure to Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs.

Capula Management Ltd, a hedge fund management company based in London, UK, displayed an even more drastic action. As of December 30, 2025, it held $470 million in IBIT and $160 million in FBTC, along with $207 million in ETHA and $61.43 million in FETH, but the latest 13F report shows all these ETFs have been fully liquidated. At the same time, Capula Management Ltd has completely liquidated its Coinbase position (retaining a small portion of options).

Staying Put is Also a Form of Attitude

The second type is those who stayed put.

Brown University still holds its IBIT position at 212,500 shares, with no increases or decreases. Based on the disclosed market value, this position dropped from approximately $10.551 million at the end of 2025 to about $8.164 million at the end of Q1 2026. This category of university funds has not directly translated a quarter's price fluctuations into trading instructions, but instead emphasizes portfolio discipline and long-term allocation rhythm.

Dartmouth College's handling of cryptocurrency assets in Q1 2026 resembles gentle expansion rather than aggressive shifts. According to the comparison with the previous quarter's 13F, the college continued to retain its original Bitcoin ETF base, with the number of IBIT shares remaining basically unchanged; however, as prices retreated during the first quarter, the market value dropped from over $10 million to about $7.7 million. For Ethereum exposure, the college switched products, replacing the original Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust with the Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF, holding about 178,100 shares; it also established a new position in the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF, around 304,803 shares, with a market value of about $3.3 million.

Another Approach: Buy More as Prices Fall

The third type is those who increased their holdings against the trend.

The Abu Dhabi Sovereign Fund Mubadala is one of the most striking names. Its holdings in IBIT increased from 12,702,323 shares to 14,721,917 shares, an increase of about 15.9%. However, even with an increase in the number of shares, the market value at the end of the quarter still fell from about $631 million to approximately $566 million. These numbers clearly illustrate a point. An increase in holdings does not automatically lead to profits, especially while the market is still in a pullback, as increasing allocations lead to greater exposure before potentially achieving higher flexibility in the future.

JPMorgan's moves can also be understood within this logic. The latest 13F data shows that JPMorgan increased its IBIT holdings from approximately 3.028 million shares to about 8.3 million shares, an increase of 174%, while also increasing exposure in some FBTC, BITB, and Ethereum ETFs. In terms of share changes, it is evidently more aggressive; however, this does not necessarily mean it has locked in excess returns during this round of volatility. For large banks, increasing ETF positions is often about expanding product offerings, satisfying customer allocation needs, and balancing liquidity and balance sheet risk, rather than merely being bullish.

Wells Fargo's changes in positions are also worth noting. A comparison shows that this bank retained its core IBIT position while increasing allocations in BITB and Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust. More noteworthy is its significant ramp-up in Ethereum ETFs, increasing its ETHA holdings from approximately 672,600 shares to about 1.1 million shares, with a simultaneous increase in ETHW holdings. In other words, Wells Fargo adopted a strategy of "retaining Bitcoin base and raising Ethereum weight."

Market maker Jane Street demonstrated another typical style. Comparing the two 13Fs, it significantly reduced its exposure to Bitcoin spot ETFs, with its IBIT position decreasing from approximately 20.3 million to about 5.9 million shares, while FBTC also saw a notable decline; however, at the same time, it added around $82 million in Ethereum ETF exposure. In cryptocurrency stocks, Jane Street increased positions in Galaxy Digital (8746%), Circle (1162%), and Coinbase (+14%), BitMine (+47%), among others. This combination resembles a typical trading rebalance: reducing Bitcoin ETFs, increasing Ethereum ETFs, while seeking higher elasticity in individual stocks.

Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana: Institutions Are Making Finer Risk Rankings

This round of 13F filings also yields a noteworthy signal: institutions' attitudes toward BTC ETFs, ETH ETFs, and even Solana ETFs are no longer uniform. The more pressing question now is which type of cryptocurrency asset institutions are ready to keep in core positions, which to place in flexible positions, and which to simply remove first.

Taking Harvard Management as an example, it reduced its IBIT position while fully exiting ETHA, indicating a risk ranking. The Bitcoin ETF still retains a relatively core position, while the Ethereum ETF was prioritized for removal in the portfolio rebalancing.

Goldman's approach also illustrates that large financial institutions are executing this ranking more meticulously. It maintained substantial exposure to Bitcoin ETFs during Q1 but noticeably contracted its Ethereum-related products more rapidly, while effectively clearing out XRP and Solana-related ETFs. Viewed together, Goldman is concentrating positions on assets it perceives to have the highest liquidity, easiest hedging capabilities, and most straightforward integration into institutional risk models. Here, Bitcoin resembles a "core position," Ethereum falls into a compressible position, and products like Solana and XRP are closer to edge testing positions; when market volatility amplifies, this latter section is often the first to be cut.

On the other hand, Wells Fargo and Dartmouth College presented entirely different answers. Wells Fargo proactively increased its Ethereum ETF weight, indicating that within its internal framework, Ethereum resembles a secondary position worthy of reallocation during pullbacks to capture elasticity. Dartmouth College's strategy is even more representative: it did not touch its Bitcoin ETF base but extended new flexibility to Solana-related ETFs, particularly those with staking attributes.

13F Provides a Snapshot, But Leaves Gaps

This is also the most critical aspect of observing institutional holdings.

13F allows the outside world to see how mainstream institutions configure cryptocurrency ETFs under a unified standard. However, it has very clear boundaries. Firstly, there is a time lag. Investors see in May only the snapshot of institutions’ positions as of March 31. If there have been substantial adjustments in Q2, the figures will not show in advance. Secondly, 13F only displays holdings without revealing actual buying costs. The decline in a certain institution's holding value over a quarter does not necessarily indicate an overall loss, as it may have purchased at an earlier position or may have made reductions and reinvestments during the quarter.

Furthermore, for institutions like Goldman, JPMorgan, and Jane Street, beyond spot ETFs, their positions often incorporate options, hedges, and market-making related positions, making it easy to misinterpret trading behaviors as long-term stances when viewing the table alone.

However, precisely because it is incomplete, 13F serves more as a window to observe institutional sentiment rather than a conclusive table. Observing the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Fund Mubadala increasing its holdings while the market value retreats reflects the patience of sovereign funds; seeing Brown University remaining unchanged while enduring pullbacks highlights long-term allocation discipline; observing Harvard University reducing Bitcoin exposure and exiting Ethereum ETFs reveals the true sensitivity of university funds to volatility; and witnessing JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and Jane Street continue to adjust exposure for certain products illustrates that Wall Street still treats cryptocurrency ETFs as a category that needs to remain on the shelf and be continuously repriced.