Institutional funds shift towards differentiated allocation: Goldman Sachs liquidates XRP and SOL, is the institutional allocation logic changing?

In May 2026, Goldman Sachs submitted its quarterly 13F holdings report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, sparking widespread market attention. The document shows that this top Wall Street investment bank fully liquidated its holdings in XRP and Solana-related ETFs in the first quarter of 2026, while reducing its Ethereum ETF exposure by about 70%, yet maintaining Bitcoin ETF holdings at approximately $700 million. This rebalancing is not merely a contraction of crypto exposure but reflects that institutional capital is layering its valuation of different crypto assets—viewing Bitcoin as core infrastructure allocation, while altcoin ETFs are more tactical positions that can be scaled in or out.



## Which crypto ETFs did Goldman Sachs completely liquidate?

According to the 13F filing submitted to the SEC for Q1 2026, Goldman Sachs exited all XRP and Solana ETF holdings during that quarter. The report shows that in Q4 2025, Goldman Sachs held about $154 million in XRP-related ETFs, distributed across products from Bitwise, Franklin Templeton, Grayscale, and 21Shares, making it one of the largest institutional holders of XRP ETFs at the time. Regarding Solana, Goldman Sachs previously held positions in Grayscale Solana Trust ETF, Bitwise Solana Staking ETF, and Fidelity Solana Fund, but has now fully exited all of these.

In terms of Bitcoin allocations, Goldman Sachs still maintains a sizable exposure: approximately $690 million in BlackRock’s IBIT and about $25 million in Fidelity’s FBTC, totaling roughly $715 million, only about 10% less than the previous quarter. Ethereum holdings saw a more dramatic change—BlackRock’s ETHA position was reduced by about 70%, leaving around 7.2 million shares valued at approximately $114 million.

Additionally, Goldman Sachs has taken a contrarian approach to crypto-related stocks: increasing holdings in companies like Circle, Galaxy Digital, Coinbase, Robinhood, and PayPal, while reducing positions in mining and infrastructure firms such as Strategy, Bit Digital, Riot Platforms, and IREN. This indicates that their strategic adjustments are not only shifting from “token-based” to “stock-based” exposure but also reflect a valuation judgment across different segments of the crypto industry.

## Why did they fully liquidate altcoin ETFs but keep Bitcoin holdings stable?

Goldman Sachs’ differentiated treatment of XRP, Solana, and Bitcoin ETFs fundamentally reflects a core judgment: within institutional asset allocation frameworks, the risk levels and valuation prospects of different crypto assets are significantly stratified.

Bitcoin ETFs benefit from deeper institutional liquidity, more mature custody infrastructure, and clearer regulatory status. After years of market validation, BTC has gradually evolved from a “high-risk speculative asset” to a “digital store of value” option within some institutional portfolios. In contrast, XRP and Solana ETFs have shorter launch histories, and their institutional liquidity and market-making depth remain to be tested. The regulatory status of XRP and Solana has been uncertain for a long time—SEC has repeatedly classified SOL as a security, and although XRP gained some clarity in 2023 through partial litigation wins, the regulatory landscape remains ambiguous, which continues to slow institutional adoption of related ETFs.

Furthermore, the market environment in Q1 2026 is also noteworthy. During this period, Bitcoin prices experienced a decline of over 25%, yet Goldman Sachs did not significantly cut its core BTC holdings. Instead, it maintained a position of about $700 million despite volatility, consistent with a “strategic core position” typical of institutional asset allocation—core holdings are preserved even when prices are under pressure. Altcoin ETFs are viewed as more volatile tactical exposures, which are prioritized for reduction in tightening macro conditions.

## How does fund flow data support Goldman Sachs’ allocation logic?

Goldman Sachs’ individual position adjustments are not isolated but are corroborated by broader institutional fund flow trends. According to CoinShares’ weekly fund flow report as of May 18, 2026, global digital asset investment products experienced net outflows of $1.07 billion in a single week, ending six consecutive weeks of inflows. Bitcoin-related products saw outflows of $982 million, and Ethereum products outflows of $249 million—the largest weekly withdrawal since January 30. Regionally, nearly all withdrawals were concentrated in the U.S.—U.S.-registered products saw about $1.14 billion in net outflows, while Switzerland, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands still recorded net inflows, indicating regional differences in macro interpretations.

Notably, in this context, altcoin products showed a very different pattern: XRP-related products had net inflows of $67.6 million, and Solana products attracted $55.1 million, totaling over $120 million in new funds. This “massive outflow from Bitcoin + inflow into altcoins” structure suggests that institutional capital is not entirely retreating from digital assets but is selectively reallocating within the market—exiting the most liquid, macro-risk-correlated BTC exposure while shifting some funds into assets with improved regulatory outlooks or independent narratives.

It’s important to note that 13F filings only reflect quarter-end holdings snapshots and may include market-making inventories and client-driven positions, not necessarily representing Goldman Sachs’ directional bets. However, the combination of liquidating XRP and SOL ETFs while increasing positions in crypto-related stocks like Circle and Coinbase sends a clear signal: institutions prefer to allocate capital into crypto segments with clearer regulatory frameworks, actual revenue streams, and mature business models, rather than passively holding tokens via ETFs.

## How does liquidity variation among ETF products influence institutional allocation decisions?

Institutional preferences for crypto ETFs are directly related to differences in liquidity profiles across products. As of May 19, 2026, according to Gate data, Bitcoin (BTC) was quoted around $76,500, Ethereum (ETH) at about $1,600, XRP at roughly $1.32, and Solana (SOL) at approximately $90.50. But the differences in liquidity depth are often more explanatory of behavior than price levels alone.

Since the approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs in January 2024, the market has accumulated over two years of trading history and substantial institutional participation data. By the end of Q1 2026, U.S. Bitcoin spot ETFs held about 1.29 million BTC, with a total value of roughly $86.9 billion. This scale of assets under management implies higher market depth, lower trading costs, and greater price stability—key factors for institutional investability.

In contrast, XRP and Solana ETFs are still in earlier stages. Although regulatory reforms in 2025 attracted about $1 billion each into XRP and Solana ETFs, their total assets are still far below Bitcoin’s nearly $100 billion. Smaller scale means higher volatility and lower resilience to shocks. For a firm managing trillions of dollars like Goldman Sachs, establishing multi-hundred-million-dollar positions in XRP and SOL ETFs—relative to their overall size—implies significant proportional exposure. When market conditions shift, liquidating such positions could face liquidity constraints, which likely influences Goldman Sachs’ preference to fully exit altcoin ETFs.

This explains why Bitcoin ETFs are retained—assets with deeper liquidity naturally support higher “error tolerance” in institutional portfolios.

## Is crypto asset allocation shifting from “token exposure” to “industry stocks”?

Another key insight from Goldman Sachs’ Q1 rebalancing is the change in its crypto-related stock holdings. The bank significantly increased positions in Circle, Galaxy Digital, Coinbase, Robinhood, and PayPal, while reducing holdings in mining and infrastructure firms like Strategy, Bit Digital, Riot Platforms, and IREN.

This shift has a clear logic: stock-based crypto assets offer valuation frameworks based on traditional accounting—steady revenues, transparent business models, and governance aligned with regulatory expectations—making them easier for institutions to evaluate and price. For example, Circle, as the main issuer of USDC stablecoin, benefits directly from the growth in digital dollar demand; Coinbase, as a compliant exchange, has predictable trading fee income. These features align with institutional preferences for “valued” assets.

In contrast, holding XRP or SOL ETFs exposes investors solely to the underlying token’s price volatility, lacking revenue buffers or dividend mechanisms. Institutions tend to be cautious about such “price-only” exposures. Goldman Sachs’ shift—reducing pure token ETF exposure and increasing holdings in crypto infrastructure stocks—implies a deeper capital flow trend: institutions are integrating crypto into traditional asset allocation frameworks, using revenue- and cash flow-based valuation methods rather than narrative-driven or supply-demand speculation.

## Does this differentiated allocation signal broader institutional pattern shifts?

Goldman Sachs’ differentiated approach is not unique. Other institutions’ filings show similar trends. Harvard’s endowment reduced its IBIT position by about 43% to roughly $117 million and closed its previous quarter’s Ethereum ETF position; Jane Street cut IBIT holdings by about 71% and FBTC by roughly 60%. Meanwhile, some entities took opposite actions—Mubadala from Abu Dhabi increased IBIT holdings by about 16% to roughly $566 million, and Brown University maintained its IBIT exposure. This indicates that while consensus is not yet universal, “tightening altcoin exposure and maintaining or modestly increasing BTC” is becoming a common theme among mainstream institutions.

From a macro perspective, the introduction of ETFs has fundamentally shifted the demand structure in crypto markets—from supply-side factors like miner halving to demand-side factors like institutional allocation. Under this framework, different assets will be stratified based on liquidity, regulatory clarity, and adoption. Bitcoin, with its first-mover advantage, largest ETF scale, and highest regulatory clarity, is likely to remain the “core holding” in institutional portfolios. Meanwhile, XRP, Solana, and future approved altcoin ETFs are more likely to be viewed as “tactical tools”—used for high-volatility environments, scaled out during risk-off periods, and selectively increased when risk appetite recovers.

The upcoming Q2 13F disclosures around August will further reveal whether this allocation stratification persists or if institutional interest in altcoin ETFs rebounds. For now, the signals suggest that crypto fund flows are becoming more layered and differentiated—highlighting a widening gap between Bitcoin’s institutionalization and that of other tokens.

## Summary

In Q1 2026, Goldman Sachs liquidated XRP and Solana ETFs and cut Ethereum exposure, while maintaining about $700 million in Bitcoin ETF holdings. This signals a clear differentiation in their crypto allocation strategy. Data indicates that Goldman Sachs is not bearish on crypto but is re-pricing the market: Bitcoin ETFs are positioned as core holdings due to liquidity and regulatory clarity, while altcoin ETFs are viewed as high-volatility tactical exposures to be trimmed first. This aligns with CoinShares’ fund flow data—despite overall outflows, XRP and Solana products still attracted new funds, reflecting internal sector rotation rather than outright rejection of altcoins. Simultaneously, Goldman Sachs’ increased holdings in crypto infrastructure stocks like Circle and Coinbase point to a shift from token-only exposure toward revenue- and cash flow-based industry investments. As more 13F filings emerge, the layered and differentiated nature of institutional crypto allocations will become even clearer.

## FAQ

Q: Does Goldman Sachs’ liquidation of XRP and Solana ETFs mean they are bearish on these projects?

This liquidation mainly reflects risk assessment differences among assets, not a fundamental negative view on XRP or Solana. Goldman Sachs also liquidated XRP and SOL ETFs and reduced Ethereum exposure by about 70%, while maintaining roughly $700 million in Bitcoin ETFs. This pattern likely stems from considerations of liquidity depth and regulatory clarity, rather than outright project disapproval.

Q: How much do 13F holdings data tell us?

13F filings are snapshots at quarter-end, showing only long positions and not including shorts, derivatives, or OTC activity. Positions may also be influenced by market-making inventories and client activity. Therefore, Goldman Sachs’ liquidation signals a risk exposure reduction at quarter-end, not a comprehensive view of all flows during the quarter.

Q: What was the overall institutional fund flow in Q1 2026?

According to CoinShares’ fund flow report as of May 18, 2026, global crypto ETPs and ETFs experienced net outflows of $1.07 billion in one week, ending six weeks of inflows. Bitcoin products saw outflows of $982 million, Ethereum $249 million—the largest weekly withdrawal since late January. Regionally, nearly all withdrawals were in the U.S.—about $1.14 billion net outflow—while Switzerland, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands still saw net inflows, indicating regional differences in macro interpretation.

Q: Are crypto ETFs beyond Bitcoin still valuable for institutions?

Yes. CoinShares data shows that during the recent outflow week, XRP and Solana ETFs attracted $67.6 million and $55.1 million respectively, indicating some institutional interest. As more altcoin ETFs are approved, institutions may adopt a “core-satellite” strategy—using Bitcoin ETFs as the core position and altcoin ETFs like XRP and SOL as tactical satellites for diversification and risk management.