In the fourth quarter of 2025, a significant adjustment by Harvard Management Company in its crypto asset ETF positions is gradually being revealed to the public through its SEC 13F filing submitted in February 2026: on one hand, it reduced its Bitcoin ETF position by about 21%, while on the other hand, for the first time, it established a position in the Ethereum ETF on the open market. Within the compliance disclosure framework, this 13F document provides a rare "window" for the market, allowing insights into how top university funds integrate crypto assets into traditional portfolios. With an approximate $352.6 million total exposure in crypto ETFs, although it remains a limited proportion relative to overall managed assets, its existence itself has changed the narrative of traditional asset allocation—why would a prestigious university endowment allocate space for Bitcoin and Ethereum beyond tech stocks and private equity? This has become a key question looming over the market.

Opinion Breakdown

● Reducing IBIT is not exiting the market: According to public disclosures, Harvard has reduced its holdings in BlackRock iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) by about 21% from prior significant accumulations, yet it still holds approximately 5.35 million shares of IBIT (according to A, C). This suggests that the action is more about deleveraging and taking some profits after significant surges and volatility, rather than a complete exit from the Bitcoin ETF, as IBIT continues to exist as an important risk asset in the portfolio.

● The core position of Bitcoin ETF remains: There are voices in the market suggesting, "the Bitcoin ETF is still Harvard's largest single-stock type asset position disclosed" (this claim is information pending verification), and regardless of the final details, this judgment reflects a fact: among the stock-type assets that Harvard can publicly disclose, Bitcoin-related ETFs occupy a quite prominent position. For a top university fund that has traditionally excelled in tech stocks, pharmaceutical stocks, and private market investments, this structure itself indicates the core weight of Bitcoin in its public asset pool.

● Possible institutional logic behind the reduction: From typical institutional behavior, such a reduction of about 20% often indicates profit-taking and concentration management. On one hand, after Bitcoin prices surged significantly and derivatives leverage accumulated, locking in some profits and reducing single asset weight is a common risk control action; on the other hand, it may also be making room for new assets—such as the Ethereum ETF—shifting the portfolio from a "single heavyweight" to a "multifaceted diversified" approach, rather than a complete turn on Bitcoin's long-term prospects.

● The signaling significance of establishing ETHA positions: At the same time, Harvard's first establishment of a position in iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) became another focus. The market claims that its new position is about 3.87 million shares of ETHA, but this specific number is still considered information pending verification and should not be treated as a confirmed fact. Regardless of the exact scale, the key point is: the Ethereum ETF appearing for the first time in this 13F marks a structural upgrade in the institutional perspective from "only looking at Bitcoin" to "dual-core BTC + ETH."

● Crypto exposure shifting from single-point to a portfolio: Without precisely splitting the market cap of IBIT and ETHA, research data shows that together they contribute to an approximate $352.6 million crypto asset exposure (according to A, C). This indicates that Harvard is no longer betting on a single asset merely through a Bitcoin ETF but has begun attempting to participate in the crypto market through a multi-asset portfolio. For the internal risk committee, this transition from single-core to dual-core helps build a more manageable risk framework through correlation and volatility differences.

● The portrayal of BTC and ETH in the eyes of institutions: In the general awareness of mainstream institutions, BTC is closer to "digital gold," linked with macro liquidity, inflation expectations, and hedging demand; ETH is more closely tied to narratives of "on-chain applications," "smart contracts," and "tech growth," resembling infrastructure-based tech assets. This attribute difference provides a rationale for traditional investment committees for diversification: within the same arena, by allocating two assets with different logics, the risk of a single narrative failing can be hedged without making an absolute bet on any single technology pathway.

● The demonstration effect of Ethereum ETF: Harvard's action of "first establishing a position in Ethereum ETF" is likely to have demonstration and endorsement significance for other university endowment funds and family offices. In recent years, Bitcoin ETF has almost been the only "compliance entry" for crypto assets; now, second-tier assets like Ethereum gaining more attention through ETF forms means that in the future, institutional crypto asset pools are expected to expand from a single currency to a richer "multi-asset basket."

Narratives Intertwined

● The traditional landscape and redistribution of top university funds: As a "top university fund," Harvard has long focused on technology, healthcare, private equity, etc., emphasizing long-term holding and cross-cycle returns. The emergence of crypto ETFs did not happen in a vacuum but inevitably squeezed some risk budgets originally occupied by tech stocks, growth stocks, and even some alternative assets. This looks more like a structural redistribution—under the premise of unchanged total risk constraints, the share of "future technology" within the portfolio has partially extended from traditional internet and semiconductors to on-chain infrastructure and crypto assets.

● The internal game of the investment committee: In the face of crypto ETFs, traditional investment committees often seek balance among multiple forces: the compliance and risk control teams focus on regulatory uncertainty and custody security, the board of trustees and administrative layers care about school reputation and social perception, while younger alumni and some donors have higher expectations for emerging assets and cutting-edge technologies. In this game, how to make room for crypto assets without breaking the overall risk framework is itself a governance experiment.

● A possible internal discussion path: It can be imagined that within Harvard's internal asset allocation discussions, there exists such a line of thought: not significantly increasing overall crypto exposure, nor overly relying on a single asset, while reducing some Bitcoin ETF holdings and introducing a portion of Ethereum ETF positions. In this way, the portfolio forms some internal hedges between "digital gold" and "on-chain tech growth," ensuring that even if a main theme underperforms in a certain period, another theme may still provide returns, keeping overall risk exposure on a controllable track.

● The formal "inclusion" of crypto assets: From this round of adjustments, it can be seen that mainstream institutions no longer regard crypto assets as "marginal speculative products," but instead place them alongside large-cap tech stocks, credit bonds, and private equity as formal asset categories requiring continuous governance, risk control, and rebalancing. This "inclusion" means that the fate of crypto assets is no longer solely tied to retail sentiment and bull-bear cycles but increasingly embedded into the asset allocation processes, risk models, and long-term planning of large institutions.

Deep Game

In a broader temporal and market context, this adjustment by Harvard is not an isolated event but one layered upon the dual backdrop of high volatility environments and accelerated institutional entry. In the fourth quarter of 2025, leverage positions surrounding Bitcoin and Ethereum in the derivatives market significantly increased, with single-source data indicating that potential liquidation risks included approximately $715 million in long positions and about $965 million in short positions, with both sides hanging under the "sword of Damocles." In such an environment, opting to lower the weight of a single Bitcoin ETF during phases of amplified volatility inherently carries considerations of reducing leverage in line with market trends.

At the same time, traditional financial institutions like Charles Schwab are accelerating their crypto business deployment (according to A), from ETF issuance and custody services to brokerage and settlement support, forming an increasingly complete compliance infrastructure. For institutions like Harvard, which are essentially conservative and place extreme emphasis on compliance, the technical and regulatory barriers that previously hindered their entry into the crypto market are gradually being lowered. Once custody security, liquidity, and compliance availability are guaranteed, the "friction costs" between crypto assets and other public market assets decline significantly, making allocation and rebalancing operations more easily incorporated into regular processes.

This "strong volatility + accelerated institutional entry" environment highlights the risk asset attributes of Bitcoin and other assets, prompting conservative funds to exercise greater caution in timing their engagements; on the other hand, it also rapidly raises the opportunity cost of completely exiting crypto—once entirely exiting, any future attempt to reestablish a significant exposure will face multiple uncertainties, including price, liquidity, and regulatory windows. Placed in a global perspective, from Japan's Metaplanet holding 35,102 BTC (according to a single source) to the ETF allocations of American financial giants and university funds, a picture of an institutional holding landscape composed of Bitcoin and Ethereum is gradually being sketched, with Harvard being one significant piece of the puzzle.

Layout Suggestions (Strategy)

From Harvard's "reduce BTC, increase ETH" portfolio action, the market naturally extends an open question: will future incremental funds from institutions be allocated more evenly between BTC and ETH, or will they continue to maintain Bitcoin as the absolute main character, with Ethereum and other assets as "satellite positions"? The answer likely depends on the evolution of different macro and tech scenarios. In phases where inflation expectations fluctuate and interest rate paths are unclear, Bitcoin is more easily viewed by institutions as a long-term hedging tool; while during prosperous periods of technological innovation and on-chain applications, Ethereum and its ecosystem-related assets may show stronger growth elasticity.

In the coming years, more university endowment funds, sovereign funds, and pension funds will likely proceed with a rhythm of "observing pioneers like Harvard—small proportion pilot—reevaluating for expansion," with ETF channels being the most feasible and easiest path to achieve internal consensus. By leaving traces of crypto ETFs in public documents like 13F, these institutions accept external oversight from the market and public opinion while gradually building internal valuation, risk control, and compliance frameworks for crypto assets, forming a slow yet steady "slow variable type" institutional convergence.

At the same time, risks and uncertainties need to be clearly labeled: 13F disclosures naturally lag, and Harvard's current actual holdings may have already adjusted beyond public data; information regarding specific share counts of ETHA, etc., is still pending further sources for cross-verification, and some market cap estimates should not be regarded as conclusions. When interpreting the allocation actions of these large institutions, the market should avoid overly extrapolating single-point data into long-term strategic shifts and should more cautiously view it as a phase rebalancing under compliance constraints, macro environments, and internal games.

Chain Reactions After Elite University Funds Test Crypto

In summary, Harvard Management Company's adjustment in the fourth quarter of 2025 sends a clear signal: while retaining Bitcoin as the primary holding, introducing Ethereum ETFs evolved crypto assets from a single bet into a more structured thinking of a multi-asset portfolio. For such a traditional top institution, this means it is beginning to systematically view the internal distinctions of the crypto sector, rather than simply categorizing it as "a type of high-risk asset."

From a broader macro perspective, this step is promoting two main lines: first, the formal "naturalization" of BTC and ETH in global institutional asset allocation tables, moving from marginal exposures to regular allocation objects; second, the narrative of the crypto market is gradually shifting from retail sentiment and speculative drives to a framework centered on institutional fund rhythm, risk budgets, and rebalancing logic. In the coming quarters, other university endowment funds, family offices, and asset management companies may likely use the ETF compliance channel to first pilot small proportions, then dynamically adjust based on performance and regulatory environments, while leaving "signatures" of crypto assets in 13F, and exploring risk management paradigms suitable for the new asset class in their internal governance.

Regardless of the pace of this process, Harvard's adjustment has already pushed the relationship between elite university funds and crypto assets from "whether to enter" to a new stage of "how to allocate," and the resulting chain reactions are shaping the fundamental contours of the next phase of the institutional crypto era.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。