Institutional Investors Show ‘Diamond Hands’ as Spot Bitcoin ETF Adoption Grows in Q2, Reports Bitwise CIO

As a seasoned researcher with over two decades of experience in the financial industry, I find Matt Hougan’s insights into Q2 Bitcoin ETF filings with the U.S. SEC not only enlightening but also reassuring for the broader crypto community.


On August 14, Matt Hougan, as Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise Asset Management, publicly disclosed his preliminary interpretations of the Q2 Bitcoin ETF submissions to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, via a social media post. In this article, we’ll explore the main findings from Hougan’s insights.

Institutional Interest Continues to Grow

Although Bitcoin prices dropped in the second quarter, Hougan observed a substantial growth in institutional participation through spot Bitcoin ETFs. He points out a 30% increase in the number of holder-ETF connections, rising from 1,479 to 1,924 in Q2 across all ten spot Bitcoin ETFs.

To fully grasp the concept of “holder<>ETF pairs” as used by Hougan, think of it this way: Each time an institution invests in a specific Bitcoin ETF is considered one instance or pair of holder<>ETF. So, if Institution A purchases shares in three distinct spot Bitcoin ETFs, that amounts to three instances of holder<>ETF pairs. This measurement serves to evaluate the overall institutional involvement with spot Bitcoin ETFs, although it doesn’t necessarily equal the number of unique institutions participating directly.

The clarification is made by Hougan that while the total might not translate directly to 1,924 distinct institutions due to some investors holding positions in more than one ETF, he underscores that this “double-counting” issue affects both Q1 and Q2 data equally. As a result, he highlights that the percentage increase remains a significant measure of comparison between the quarters.

In Q2, there was a persistent rise in the acceptance of Bitcoin ETFs by institutions, showing their ability to withstand market turbulence.

Institutions Demonstrate “Diamond Hands”

One fascinating discovery from Hougan’s examination is the way institutions that invested in spot Bitcoin ETFs during Q1 acted unexpectedly. Contrary to concerns about massive institutional selling, the data suggests a consistent investment approach. According to Hougan’s report, more than four out of ten (44%) Q1 investors expanded their holdings in Q2, and almost one-fifth (22%) kept their positions unchanged. A relatively small number (21%) reduced their investments, while just 13% completely withdrew from these positions.

Hougan points out that this distribution mirrors the investment strategies of other ETFs, implying that institutional Bitcoin ETF investors are adopting conventional investment habits instead of exhibiting excessive speculation. Known in cryptocurrency circles as the “diamond hand” approach, this long-term investment stance suggests a strong commitment from many institutional investors.

Hedge Funds Remain Prominent, But Diversity Is Increasing

Analyzing the leading investors of Bitcoin ETFs with the highest positions shows a significant involvement of prominent hedge funds, such as Millennium, Schonfeld, Boothbay, and Capula, according to Hougan. Moreover, he highlights an increasing variety among the investor pool, encompassing financial advisors, family offices, and select institutional investors.

Hougan shows excitement over this variety, pointing out the coexistence of entities such as Millennium and the State of Wisconsin within Bitcoin ETF submissions. To him, this suggests that Bitcoin ETFs are successfully drawing in a broad spectrum of institutional investors.

As a researcher, I anticipate a growing tendency for wealth managers and pension funds to invest significantly in spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). This shift could be seen as a sign of expanding institutional approval towards cryptocurrencies, indicating a broadening acceptance within the financial sector.

Caution on AUM Reports

In summary, Hougan cautions against relying too heavily on Asset Under Management (AUM) reports until they’ve been fully submitted. This is because a few big investors hadn’t filed their reports by the time he wrote his post, and their late filings could substantially alter the overall AUM figures.

Read More

2024-08-15 09:25