Most institutional investors surveyed by Bitwise allocate between 1% and 2% of their investable assets to cryptocurrency, with none of the 15 respondents reducing exposure during a market fall of about 50% between October 2025 and April 2026.
The findings come from Bitwise’s inaugural Institutional Crypto Adoption report, published on 23 September. The firm interviewed senior investment professionals between late March and April across endowments, foundations, public pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, multi-family offices, investment consultants and public companies.
The interviews lasted 30 to 60 minutes and examined allocation sizes, governance, investment vehicles, rebalancing and exit conditions. Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana were given particular attention.
Bitwise did not name the institutions. Its figures were measured as of 30 April unless otherwise stated, and the report stressed that the sample is not representative of the entire institutional market.
Across the group, crypto allocations ranged from 0.5% to 13% of investable assets. Endowments and foundations reported exposure of 0.5% to 10%, although most were between 0.5% and 2%. Sovereign wealth funds ranged from 1% to 1.5%, public pensions from 1.5% to 4.5%, and multi-family offices reached 13%, with family offices commonly targeting about 5%. Public companies allocated between 1% and 10% of excess cash.
Several investors increased their positions during the market decline. Some had already remained invested through falls of more than 50%, including the 2022 downturn, while others shifted from private placements into direct holdings or exchange-traded funds.
No respondent identified falling prices as a reason to exit. Instead, possible triggers included a failed investment thesis, a regulatory reversal, an industry-wide credibility crisis, or a failure by Ethereum and Solana activity to create value for their tokens.
Bitcoin remains the main institutional asset
Bitcoin was held by every crypto-owning institution in the study. For almost all respondents, it was the first, largest and longest-held digital asset. Market-cap-weighted portfolios left some investors with about 80% of their crypto allocation in Bitcoin.
Many described Bitcoin as a store of value and compared it with gold. Some endowments held both assets under the same strategy, while one foundation classified crypto as disruptive technology rather than “digital gold”.
Ethereum and Solana appeared less consistently and were generally held in smaller, newer positions. Investors often linked ETH and SOL to network adoption, including stablecoins, decentralised finance and tokenisation, and some said they could sell within several years if that growth did not benefit the tokens.
Almost every institution used, or intended to use, spot crypto ETFs. Investors who moved away from direct custody cited lower costs, simpler operations and easier back-office administration. However, one sovereign wealth fund was building domestic custody infrastructure to control assets directly, while a public endowment could not own spot commodities, including through ETFs. Another investor preferred vehicles that avoided public Form 13F disclosure.
Bitwise said 13F data should therefore be viewed as a floor for institutional exposure because it excludes direct token ownership, many private funds and other non-reportable vehicles.
Public filings illustrate the differences. The SEC received Dartmouth College’s second-quarter 13F on 13 August, covering holdings at 30 June; its Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana ETF share counts were unchanged despite a fall in combined value. Harvard kept its 3.04 million-share BlackRock Bitcoin ETF holding unchanged in the second quarter after reducing it earlier, while it exited its Ether ETF and cut its Bitcoin ETF position in the first quarter before holding its remaining IBIT shares steady in Q2. There is no evidence Harvard took part in Bitwise’s interviews.
Bitwise said custody, portfolio classification, approvals and reputational risk were greater obstacles than doubts about potential returns. Family offices faced fewer restrictions, whereas public pensions and sovereign funds dealt with boards, beneficiaries, elected officials, media and public-sector oversight.
The firm expects most institutional investors to hold crypto within five years, but presents that as its own outlook rather than a conclusion from the 15 interviews. It cited regulation and peer adoption as possible drivers, while warning that a major failure or weak real-world use could delay adoption. Some sovereign wealth funds remained in due diligence, and one said the legal and regulatory preparation needed to deploy sovereign capital could take more than a year.
