Institutional investors with exposure to cryptocurrency maintained or increased their holdings even as the market experienced a roughly 50% drawdown, according to Bitwise’s first Institutional Crypto Adoption Report. The investment firm surveyed 15 large allocators—including endowments, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, multi-family offices, and public companies—and found that none of them cut exposure to crypto assets between October 2025 and April 2026.
Major institutions maintain crypto exposure
Allocators participating in the study controlled portfolios ranging from several hundred million to tens of billions of dollars. While the overall share of crypto in their total investable assets varied between 0.5% and 13%, most kept their exposure within the 1% to 2% range. Notably, several institutions increased their allocations during the downturn, despite widespread selling pressure in the broader market.
Holdings were not limited to exchange-traded fund (ETF) products. The institutions involved also used directly held cryptocurrencies, venture investments, and hedge funds, employing diverse strategies to maintain crypto market exposure.
Every surveyed allocator that invested in cryptocurrencies held Bitcoin, typically making it their initial, largest, and longest-held digital asset. While some paired Bitcoin with gold in diversified portfolios, assets such as Ethereum and Solana attracted less consistent support among these investors.
Investments in Ethereum, Solana, and similar tokens were generally considered smaller, higher-risk technology plays. Allocators stated that continuity of these positions depended on network adoption translating into sustainable token value. A decline in price alone was not considered a sufficient reason to exit a position; instead, most cited the failure of the underlying investment thesis, regulatory changes, or broader sector credibility issues as potential exit triggers.
ETF outflows contrast with long-term positions
Despite institutional conviction, market data pointed to significant ETF outflows during the sell-off. Farside Investors recorded $691.7 million in spot Bitcoin ETF outflows on June 25 and $444.5 million on June 26, marking the second quarter as particularly challenging for these products.
| Date | ETF Outflows (USD) |
|---|---|
| June 25, 2026 | $691.7 million |
| June 26, 2026 | $444.5 million |
James Seyffart, ETF analyst at Bloomberg, observed that ETF flow data and SEC Form 13F filings supported Bitwise’s findings. He noted that while hedge funds and retail investors accounted for most ETF sales, longer-term institutional allocators typically remained steady or even increased their holdings during the drawdown.
ETF flows and 13F reporting data confirm that long-term allocators to Bitcoin ETFs typically held through the approximately 50% drawdown, with many buying additional assets. The largest sellers were hedge funds and retail traders or investors.
However, Form 13F only provides partial visibility. Qualifying managers must file these reports quarterly, generally within 45 days, but such filings do not capture every type of investment vehicle or retail position. Bitwise also found that some institutions deliberately structured holdings to avoid 13F disclosure.
Bitwise stated that reported levels of institutional crypto ownership represent a minimum, rather than a complete reflection of the market. The study’s sample size was limited and anonymized, covering just 15 organizations. Nevertheless, the analysis offers a clear differentiation between ETF outflows and actual institutional exits.
This difference has significant implications for understanding headline fund flow data. Even as ETF withdrawals surged during the market retracement, the surveyed allocators largely maintained or grew their exposure rather than liquidating positions.
Mini dictionary: Form 13F, a quarterly report required by the SEC for institutional investment managers overseeing at least $100 million, provides details on certain securities holdings but does not include every asset or disclosure structure.
For these institutions, falling prices alone were not a reason to exit. Their decisions depended more on whether their investment thesis had failed, major regulatory shifts, or a crisis of industry credibility.
