Large institutions interviewed by Bitwise during a sharp crypto-market drawdown reported that they were not preparing to cut exposure, signaling that portfolio debates have moved beyond whether to own digital assets and toward how much to hold and through which vehicles. Bitcoin was the only asset with broad agreement across the 15 institutions surveyed, while Ethereum and Solana faced more demanding tests around adoption, fees, and token value capture.
The interviews, conducted between late March and April 2026, covered institutions worldwide including endowments, foundations, sovereign wealth funds, public pensions, corporate treasuries, multi-family offices, and advisers. Reported allocations ranged from 0.5% to 13% of investable assets, although most were concentrated between 1% and 2%, according to Bitwise.
Respondents described a market decline of roughly 50% between October 2025 and April 2026. None said they intended to sell crypto during that period, and several said they had added to positions. Their stated reasons were tied to long-term investment cases rather than expectations of an immediate rebound: a lower price alone did not meet their criteria for abandoning an allocation.
That approach places a clear dividing line between bitcoin and smaller crypto positions. Institutions broadly treated bitcoin as a reserve-style asset, often discussing it beside gold in internal portfolio reviews. Ethereum and Solana, by contrast, were generally held in smaller sizes, reviewed over shorter periods, and judged against measurable milestones for network use and fee generation.
Bitcoin is the institutional core holding
Bitcoin appeared in every crypto portfolio among institutions in the Bitwise interview group that reported holding digital assets. Several respondents said they had funded part of their crypto allocation by reducing traditional reserve assets, including foreign currencies and gold.
The comparison with gold does not mean institutions view the two assets as interchangeable. It shows where bitcoin is being placed in portfolio construction discussions: alongside scarce, globally traded assets held partly as a hedge against monetary and geopolitical risks. That framing gives bitcoin a more familiar path through investment committees than crypto assets whose valuations depend heavily on technology adoption or application activity.
Institutions used a range of approaches to obtain exposure. Reported vehicles included spot products, direct custody, venture investments, hedge funds, and index-style strategies. The mix reflects differences in governance rules, liquidity needs, internal technical capacity, and the degree of control each organization wants over custody.
Spot crypto ETFs have become a particularly important access route, according to the interviews. Most respondents said they already use such products or intend to do so. Daily liquidity and straightforward rebalancing were among the attractions, as was easier integration with existing middle- and back-office systems.
For institutions built around conventional securities workflows, an ETF can remove operational steps associated with direct token custody while allowing a crypto allocation to sit within established reporting, compliance, and trading processes. Some respondents said they were reviewing spot ETFs as older private vehicles with redemption restrictions became less attractive or reached points where exits were possible.
Ethereum and Solana face defined exit tests
The picture was more conditional for Ethereum and Solana. Several institutions said they held neither asset, citing uncertainty over the relationship between user activity, network fees, and value accruing to the underlying token. Others struggled to place the assets within existing classifications designed around equities, bonds, commodities, and private-market alternatives.
Those that did hold Ethereum or Solana described explicit thresholds tied to adoption and fee capture over the next several years. Some said they would sell if real-world usage did not scale sufficiently, or if higher usage failed to translate into token economics.
This is a more demanding framework than a simple belief that blockchain usage will grow. A network can attract users and applications without necessarily ensuring that token holders capture enough economic value to justify a long-term institutional position. The distinction is shaping position sizes: bitcoin is increasingly treated as a strategic allocation, while smart-contract platforms are often handled as investments that must periodically prove their economic model.
Bitwise’s interviews also indicated that price volatility is not the only risk institutions are monitoring. Respondents cited potential regulatory reversals, a sector-wide credibility shock, and failures in usage-led value capture as possible thesis-breaking events. These are the developments that could prompt exits, rather than a predetermined percentage decline in market prices.
Governance remains slower than conviction
Operational readiness and reputational concerns were described as larger obstacles than the underlying analytical case for including crypto in a diversified portfolio. Custody policies, governance approvals, and mandate language written for traditional asset classes can all slow implementation.
The pace also depends on who has authority to make the decision. Organizations with concentrated decision-making were described as moving faster than committee-led institutions, where members must reach consensus and account for public scrutiny. Several respondents cited career risk as a practical factor, especially at public-facing organizations where an unconventional allocation can draw attention even when it is small relative to total assets.
Sovereign wealth funds were among the slowest-moving participants in the sample. Where implemented, their allocations were discussed in a range of 1% to 1.5%, according to Bitwise. One fund said the legal and regulatory groundwork for an initial allocation could take more than a year even with high-level backing, while other sovereign institutions were operating on multi-year timelines.
The survey also points to a capacity constraint among crypto managers seeking institutional mandates. One sovereign wealth fund said it had narrowed the field to roughly 10 firms that met its standards for scale, track record, and operational controls. If large pools of capital concentrate with that limited group, individual compliance or operational failures could have outsized consequences for allocation programs.
Public disclosure may offer only a partial view of this activity. Some institutions told Bitwise they preferred structures that limit public visibility, meaning filings such as Form 13F may understate aggregate institutional exposure. As more allocations move through varied products, private mandates, and custody arrangements, tracking the full scale of institutional crypto ownership will remain difficult.
The interviews suggest that institutional crypto participation is becoming more disciplined rather than uniformly more aggressive: bitcoin has gained a clearer portfolio role, while Ethereum and Solana must meet operating and economic thresholds that many traditional assets are rarely asked to demonstrate so explicitly.
See how institutions weigh these core assets in 2026—read this analysis next.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
