{"id":12078,"date":"2026-08-19T11:56:12","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T11:56:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=12078"},"modified":"2026-08-19T11:56:12","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T11:56:12","slug":"bitcoins-q2-selloff-split-wall-street-as-banks-bought-hedge-funds-cut-and-sovereigns-held","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=12078","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin\u2019s Q2 selloff split Wall Street as banks bought, hedge funds cut and sovereigns held"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

Bitcoin fell 14.2% in the second quarter, while institutional Bitcoin ETF holdings rose 7.5% over the same period, climbing from 498,389 to 535,723 BTC equivalent. Fewer institutions drove that increase, with the number reporting Bitcoin positions through 13F filings falling roughly 6.8%, from about 2,000 to around 1,900.<\/p>\n

Those figures are Bitcoin Strategy’s second-quarter estimate, built from public 13F filings the SEC collects but does not itself aggregate this way.<\/p>\n

CoinShares, using its methodology on the prior quarter, counted just 261,000 BTC held by professional 13F filers. It put the professional share of US-traded spot Bitcoin ETF assets at 20.8%, well below Bitcoin Strategy’s 44.2% figure.<\/p>\n

The gap between those two counts shows how much the headline number depends on which filers and products get counted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Metric<\/th>\nQ1 \/ prior level<\/th>\nQ2 level<\/th>\nChange<\/th>\nWhy it matters<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Bitcoin price<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n-14.2%<\/td>\nETF ownership rose during a drawdown<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Institutional BTC-equivalent ETF holdings<\/td>\n498,389 BTC<\/td>\n535,723 BTC<\/td>\n+7.5%<\/td>\nFewer filers controlled more ETF Bitcoin<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Institutions reporting Bitcoin positions<\/td>\n~2,000<\/td>\n~1,900<\/td>\n-6.8%<\/td>\nOwnership became more concentrated<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Institutional share of ETF Bitcoin<\/td>\n38.4%<\/td>\n44.2%<\/td>\n+5.8 pts<\/td>\nThe headline adoption number improved<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CoinShares Q1 professional count<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n261,000 BTC<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\nShows methodology can radically change the total<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The banks and quants that built Bitcoin positions<\/h2>\n

JPMorgan’s reported ordinary IBIT position rose 25.35% during the quarter, climbing from 8,302,691 shares to 10,407,635 shares, worth roughly $355.7 million at the June 30 filing price.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Institutional\"Institutional<\/div>\n
Related Reading<\/span><\/p>\n

Institutional investors reach $33.6B in Bitcoin ETF holdings during Q2<\/h3>\n

Data shows advisors now hold $17.4 billion in Bitcoin ETF positions, nearly doubling hedge fund managers’ $9 billion exposure.<\/p>\n

Aug 25, 2025<\/span> \u00b7<\/span> Gino Matos<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

That is one of the cleaner large-bank comparisons in the entire round, since it measures ordinary shares against ordinary shares, without folding in derivatives or other exposure.<\/p>\n

It does not establish that JPMorgan made a $356 million wager on Bitcoin’s price, since a consolidated bank 13F can reflect client accounts, hedging, or exposure spread across multiple desks.<\/p>\n

Renaissance Technologies posted the sharpest percentage gain among recognizable managers, more than quadrupling its ordinary IBIT position to 1,403,942 shares from roughly 340,000, a 312.92% increase worth about $46.7 million by quarter’s end.<\/p>\n

The sticky holders may carry the most weight<\/h2>\n

Several major allocators closed with little to no movement, and that inaction may carry more weight than the bigger percentage swings.<\/p>\n

Mubadala Investment Company held its IBIT position flat at 14,721,917 shares, worth about $490.1 million at quarter’s end, matching its share count from three months earlier. Harvard Management reported 3,044,612 shares unchanged, and Fortress Investment Group held its 1,325,000 shares steady as well.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Bitcoin\"Bitcoin<\/div>\n
Related Reading<\/span><\/p>\n

Bitcoin erased $118 million from Abu Dhabi\u2019s ETF holdings, but its sovereign funds kept every share<\/h3>\n

Abu Dhabi\u2019s sovereign funds declined to trim their BlackRock Bitcoin ETF holdings during the broader crypto market downturn.<\/p>\n

Aug 15, 2026<\/span> \u00b7<\/span> Oluwapelumi Adejumo<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

The Abu Dhabi Investment Council’s position also stayed close to flat, at 8,218,712 shares worth about $273.6 million.<\/p>\n

Sticking with a position through a quarter where Bitcoin fell 14.2% behaves very differently from the swings tactical managers made elsewhere in the same filings, even if it falls short of proving permanent conviction.<\/p>\n

What the tactical Bitcoin reducers cut<\/h2>\n

Brevan Howard’s ordinary IBIT position fell 70.36% during the quarter, from 24,304,788 shares to 7,205,004. Read alone, that looks like one of the clearest bearish reads in the entire round.<\/p>\n

The same filing complicates that read. Brevan Howard also reported IBIT call options tied to roughly 7.23 million underlying shares and put options tied to about 5.27 million, which supports a narrower claim than a simple bearish trade.<\/p>\n

Brevan Howard cut most of its ordinary IBIT shares, as the 13F shows, though whether it exited Bitcoin altogether is a separate question the filing alone cannot answer.<\/p>\n

Citadel’s filing raises the same problem. Its ordinary IBIT position dropped 59.66% to 514,614 shares, dwarfed by the options book beside it: calls tied to about 24.65 million underlying shares and puts tied to roughly 17.86 million.<\/p>\n

Characterizing that filing as a simple bearish Bitcoin trade would mean ignoring most of the position.<\/p>\n