Italy’s largest bank trims its Bitcoin ETF exposure sharply while boosting staked Ethereum, pointing to a possible shift in institutional crypto preferences

Crypto investing behavior at traditional financial firms is coming under fresh scrutiny after a report described a major reduction in one large Italian bank’s Bitcoin ETF exposure paired with an increase in staked Ethereum holdings.

According to the report circulating in market media, Intesa Sanpaolo cut its Bitcoin ETF stake by 94% and, in the same period, tripled its staked Ethereum holdings. The article frames the changes as a potential “rotation” from Bitcoin to Ethereum, rather than a broad retreat from crypto risk.

A Bitcoin ETF (exchange-traded fund) is a fund that aims to track Bitcoin’s price and trades on a stock exchange like a share. Staking, by contrast, is when holders lock up (or delegate) assets to help secure a network and, in return, may receive rewards. In Ethereum’s case, staking is tied to the proof-of-stake mechanism that underpins how the network validates transactions.

The headline figure in the report is striking because it suggests a highly selective change in exposure, not a simple increase or decrease in crypto overall. A 94% cut implies that the institution either decided to materially reduce the role of Bitcoin in its crypto allocation or rebalanced within the broader crypto basket it is willing to hold.

For BlackRock, the story matters because it centers the bank’s role in the crypto ETF market. BlackRock’s name appears in the report through the mention of a Bitcoin ETF that is associated with the asset manager. Even without further detail in the published post, the implication is that ETF-based structures can make institutional reallocations more visible, quickly turning portfolio changes into public narratives.

Still, important context is missing from the published report. It does not, in the information provided here, explain the exact timing of the reductions and increases, the size of the positions before and after the moves in absolute terms, whether other crypto holdings were adjusted in parallel, or whether the changes reflect trading activity, hedging, or longer-term investment policy. It also does not clarify whether the “BlackRock” reference is to the issuer, the ETF’s sponsor, or another link in the ETF chain.

For investors watching the institutional adoption of digital assets, the broader takeaway is that crypto strategies at large banks may be diversifying across instruments and mechanics. If staking rewards and Ethereum’s role in network activity are becoming more central to allocations, institutions could be rethinking how they express exposure through ETFs versus other portfolio approaches.

What to watch next is whether other large European institutions report similar reallocations, and whether issuers and custodians disclose more granular data about staking participation and ETF holdings. Without additional primary filings or issuer commentary, it is not possible to confirm whether the moves represent a durable thesis shift, a one-off rebalance, or a response to specific fund or risk constraints.