Recent claims suggest that institutional capital is overwhelmingly allocated to equities and credit, with Bitcoin largely sidelined as a commodity. An infographic circulating in 2025 asserted that ~97% of institutional assets are in equity and fixed-income mandates, leaving only ~3% in commodities (including gold/Bitcoin). It cited approximate market sizes of $35 trillion in equities, $60 trillion in credit, and only $3 trillion in commodities. These figures imply ~30× more capital is available to Bitcoin if packaged as equity or credit (e.g. ETFs or notes) rather than in commodity form. Below, we verify each of these claims with up-to-date data (2023–2025) and analyze their implications for Bitcoin’s institutional adoption.
Institutional Asset Allocation: Equities, Credit, and Commodities (≈97% vs 3%)
Multiple data sources confirm that the vast majority of institutional AUM (Assets Under Management) resides in equities and fixed income, with only a sliver in commodities. For example, global sovereign wealth funds in 2024 allocated about 32% to public equity and 28% to fixed income, but just 0.8% to commodities on average. Similarly, the global market portfolio (all investable assets) as of mid-2024 was weighted ~44.8% equities and ~30% high-quality bonds, whereas gold (the primary commodity store-of-value) constituted only ~3–4%. In other words, over 95% of investable capital is tied up in stocks and bonds, while commodities (energy, metals, etc., often lumped as “alternatives”) remain a tiny allocation.
This pattern holds across institutional segments: for instance, U.S. insurance companies (with nearly $9 trillion invested) keep about 60% in bonds and 13% in equities, but effectively 0% in commodities. Pension funds also traditionally invest heavily in equities and fixed income, with only a marginal allocation to commodity assets (if any). The OECD reported global pension assets at ~$60 trillion in 2021, and over decades pensions have shifted away from bonds toward equities and alternatives – yet even those “alternatives” are mostly real estate, private equity, etc., not commodities. In sum, it is accurate that ~97% of institutional capital is in equity or credit instruments, versus only ~3% in commodities. This ratio is supported by aggregated estimates for 2023–2025: roughly $95 trillion in equity+credit mandates vs. ~$3 trillion in commodity mandates .
Table 1 – Estimated Institutional Capital by Asset Class (2023–2025)
Asset Class
Institutional Mandate AUM (Approx.)
Share of Total AUM
Public Equities (Stocks)
~$35 trillion
~36% (≈1/3)
Public Credit (Bonds/Loans)
~$60 trillion
~61% (≈2/3)
Commodities (mainly Gold)
~$3 trillion
~3%
Total (Equity+Credit+Comm.)
~$98 trillion
100%
Sources: Aggregated from MSCI, PensionsAge, Invesco, NAIC, Global SWF, Funds Europe (2023–2025). Commodity figure includes central bank gold ($2.3 trillion) and private gold investments ($0.7 trillion).
As Table 1 shows, equities and fixed-income dominate institutional portfolios (~97% combined), which corroborates the claim. The $35 trillion equity and $60 trillion credit values are in line with global institutional holdings, given that global stock market capitalization is ~$78 trillion as of 2024 and global bond market (investment-grade and government) is ~$64 trillion for core bonds alone. Institutions (pensions, insurers, sovereign funds, endowments) hold roughly half of global equities and a large share of bonds, making the ~$35T and ~$60T figures plausible. The $3 trillion in commodities chiefly reflects gold: central banks globally held ~36,000 tons of gold (worth on the order of $2–4 trillion, depending on price) , and private investors (funds, ETFs, etc.) hold additional hundreds of billions in gold. Other commodities (energy, metals, agricultural) attract minimal long-term institutional allocation. Thus, 3% ($3T of ~$98T) for commodities is a reasonable estimate, confirming that about 97% of institutional capital is “mandated” to equity and credit markets.
The stated market sizes in the image can be cross-verified against financial industry research:
Equities (~$35 trillion): This figure represents institutional exposure to public equities. For context, global pension funds held roughly half their ~$60T assets in equities (≈$30T), and sovereign wealth funds allocated ~30% of ~$10T–$12T to public equities (≈$3T). Adding insurance and other institutions, an aggregate ~$30–$40 trillion in equity holdings is reasonable. (The total world equity market is much larger, ~$80T+, but the remainder is held by retail investors, mutual funds, etc.) The MSCI ACWI index and similar benchmarks track around $35–$40 trillion of float-adjusted equity market cap, aligning with the ~$35T institutional equity number.
Credit (~$60 trillion): This likely includes sovereign bonds, corporate bonds, and other fixed-income instruments held by institutions. Global bond markets (sovereign + corporate) exceeded $73 trillion in market value by mid-2024. Institutions such as insurers (who invest ~60–70% of ~$9T US insurance assets in bonds) and pension funds (often ~30–40% in bonds) make up a huge portion of the demand for credit. For example, core bonds (government and investment-grade credit) are about $64T globally, and adding high-yield, emerging market debt, and private credit could bring the investable fixed-income universe closer to the $60–$70T range. Thus, ~$60T as the institutional credit allocation is a credible estimate, especially when considering that some institutions (like European insurers or Japanese pensions) hold bond-heavy portfolios (upwards of 70–80% in fixed income).
Commodities (~$3 trillion): This small figure primarily reflects monetary commodities, mostly gold. Gold is the one commodity widely held as a reserve asset by central banks and as an inflation hedge by investors. As of 2025, central banks collectively hold roughly $4–$5 trillion worth of gold (e.g. 36,000 tons) after the surge in gold prices . However, the $3T cited likely uses a more conservative valuation or a prior year’s price (e.g. when gold was ~$1,900/oz, central bank gold was ~$2.3T). In addition, private institutional exposure to commodities (outside gold) is very limited – even including commodity index funds, gold ETFs, and commodity futures, it’s on the order of a few hundred billion dollars. The image’s breakdown explicitly notes “$2.3T in central banks + $0.7T in private gold = ~$3T commodities”. This aligns with other analyses; for instance, State Street found that investable gold (public + private holdings) was about 3–4% of the $175T global market portfolio ($5–$6T), which is of the same order of magnitude. In short, $3T is a reasonable ballpark for the commodity mandates accessible to institutions, reinforcing that this slice is tiny relative to equity/bond markets.
Conclusion: The market size estimates $35T (equities), $60T (credit), $3T (commodities) are broadly accurate for institutional mandates in the mid-2020s. Together they sum to ~$98T, of which equities + credit = ~$95T (~97%), and commodities ~3%. This distribution is supported by external data on global asset allocation.
~30× More Capital for BTC in Equity/Credit Form vs. Commodity Form
Given the above breakdown, the claim that there is “~30× more institutional capital available for BTC in equity or credit form than in commodity form” is well-founded. Numerically: ~$95T is ~31.7 times $3T, so roughly 30×. In practical terms, for every dollar that institutions can invest in commodity-style assets, there are about thirty dollars they can invest in stocks or bonds. Bitcoin currently (as a native asset or physical spot commodity) falls into the former bucket, competing for that tiny 3% slice of institutional portfolios. If instead Bitcoin exposure is repackaged as an equity instrument (like an ETF share or a fund) or a credit instrument (like a bond or note), it can tap into the much larger 97% pool of capital that is otherwise off-limits to commodity exposures .
To validate this concept, we can look at institutional constraints and recent workarounds:
Mandate Restrictions: Many institutional investors (pensions, insurance, endowments) by charter or regulation cannot hold commodities outright (or can only in very small proportions). As one executive summarized in mid-2025, “Approximately 97% of institutional capital, a $95 trillion market, is restricted by mandate to owning only equities and credit. In other words, they can’t own Bitcoin the commodity…” . In such cases, even if an institution wanted Bitcoin exposure, they could not buy spot BTC or commodity-based funds under their guidelines.
Available vs. Accessible Capital: The ~$3T commodity mandate includes central bank gold and niche allocations; in contrast, the ~$95T in equity/credit is where institutions have flexibility to deploy funds. Therefore, if Bitcoin is accessible as an equity or fixed-income security, the pool of potential capital is exponentially larger. The claim of ~30× is a direct consequence of 97% vs 3% allocation share, which our data review confirms.
Real-world Examples: The strategy of converting Bitcoin into equity/credit has been explicitly used by companies like MicroStrategy. MicroStrategy recognized that certain funds “can only buy credit instruments” or “can only buy equities” per their mandate, so the company issued Bitcoin-linked convertible bonds (a credit instrument) and new equity shares to serve those channels . This allowed institutional investors to get Bitcoin price exposure indirectly, while staying within their permitted asset classes. The strong uptake of these offerings illustrates how much larger the demand pool becomes when Bitcoin is presented in a familiar wrapper.
In summary, the ~30× differential is accurate and significant. It highlights a structural reason why Bitcoin had remained a niche institutional holding: it was stuck in the 3% bucket. By bridging it into the 97% bucket via securitized forms, the addressable capital for BTC grows by orders of magnitude, which is exactly what we see happening with the advent of Bitcoin ETFs and other vehicles.
Bitcoin as a Commodity: Underrepresentation in Institutional Mandates
Bitcoin’s current classification and form do indeed cause it to be underrepresented in institutional portfolios. Most regulators (e.g. CFTC in the U.S.) treat Bitcoin as a commodity or commodity-like asset. Unlike stocks or bonds, pure commodities do not produce cash flows and often have special custody/insurance considerations, which makes traditional fiduciaries cautious. Key points to consider:
Mandate Exclusions: As noted, many institutional mandates either forbid commodities or cap them at a low percentage (often for risk and volatility reasons). For example, sovereign wealth funds historically kept direct commodity exposures under 1%. University endowments and pension funds might have an “alternative” bucket that includes commodities, but it competes with other diversifiers (hedge funds, private assets) and is typically small. Insurance companies virtually hold no commodities; their regulated asset mix emphasizes fixed income for liability matching. Thus, treating BTC as a commodity means it’s largely confined to a tiny corner of the asset allocation. Bitcoin’s total market cap (in the low trillions by 2025) is comparable to a mid-sized commodity market (somewhere between copper and gold). However, institutional ownership of that is minimal – as of 2025, “retail investors still dominate crypto markets… institutional interest [is] growing but still small” . One analysis found that less than 5% of Bitcoin ETF holdings were by pensions or endowments (long-term institutions), with the vast majority held by retail or shorter-term players . This underscores the underrepresentation.
Commodity = No Cash Yield: Another reason Bitcoin in commodity form is under-owned: it doesn’t fit the mold of income-generating assets. Institutions often prefer bonds (for interest income) or equities (for dividends and growth). Bitcoin, like gold, provides no yield – it’s a pure price play and store-of-value. Institutions that do allocate to commodities often do so tactically or for inflation hedging, not as a core long-term holding. Until recently, many saw Bitcoin as too volatile and speculative for the limited commodity slice they had. In effect, Bitcoin has mostly been treated like a volatile commodity or alternative asset, which meant perhaps a 0.5–2% allocation (if any) in a diversified institutional portfolio. Many big funds simply held zero Bitcoin due to lack of mandate or regulatory clarity .
Regulatory and Custodial Hurdles: Prior to 2024–2025’s regulatory developments, some institutions cited fiduciary duty concerns in directly holding crypto. With clearer frameworks emerging (e.g. U.S. bills defining digital commodities and allowing traditional custody) , this is changing. Still, during the early 2020s, the path of least resistance for institutions was to avoid direct commodity exposure to Bitcoin. That’s why indirect exposures (like investing in crypto-focused hedge funds, or in companies with Bitcoin on their balance sheet) were more common.
In essence, Bitcoin’s commodity-like nature and lack of conventional packaging kept it under-owned by institutions. The ~3% commodity allocation cap acted as a hard ceiling. The claims in the image about BTC being underrepresented are reflected in reality: even as Bitcoin’s market cap grew, institutional ownership lagged. This set the stage for financial innovation – creating Bitcoin instruments that fit equity or credit mandates – to unlock the pent-up demand.
Implications: Broadening Bitcoin Adoption via Equity and Credit Instruments
The above findings have profound implications for Bitcoin’s integration into mainstream finance. If 97% of institutional capital “couldn’t buy Bitcoin” in its raw form , then the development of Bitcoin-based equity and credit instruments is a game-changer. We are now witnessing exactly that:
Spot Bitcoin ETFs (Equity Mandate): The launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs allows investors to buy Bitcoin exposure in the form of an exchange-traded equity security. This neatly fits into equity allocations and can be bought through standard brokerage accounts, bypassing internal restrictions on commodities. The impact has been dramatic. For example, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) – one of the first U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs – saw explosive growth after its 2024 debut. By October 2025, IBIT was approaching $100 billion in assets under management, holding over 800,000 BTC . Analysts noted it was on track to reach $100B five times faster than any ETF in history – an unprecedented pace – owing to surging institutional demand . IBIT alone accounted for ~60% of all spot Bitcoin ETF holdings worldwide . Such rapid accumulation underscores how much latent demand existed among institutional investors once Bitcoin was made available in a familiar, regulated wrapper. Other providers (Fidelity, Invesco, etc.) also launched Bitcoin ETFs, but BlackRock’s scale and distribution network helped IBIT become “a magnet for institutional flows” . The broader acceptance of Bitcoin ETFs reflects increased comfort and clarity – government support and clearer rules have “made it easier for institutions that long avoided the sector to invest,” as Reuters observed during the U.S. crypto regulatory push . The ETFs have effectively bridged Bitcoin into the equity world, allowing allocations from the same buckets as commodities plus tapping new allocations from equity-centric investors.
Bitcoin-Focused Equities (“BTC Equity”): Aside from ETFs, institutions also gained exposure via public companies with Bitcoin treasuries (often called “Bitcoin proxies”). Firms like MicroStrategy (MSTR) and others transformed into quasi-Bitcoin ETFs by holding large reserves of BTC. By 2025, a cohort of companies (sometimes dubbed “Bitcoin treasury companies”) collectively held significant Bitcoin on their balance sheets . Institutional investors who could buy equities but couldn’t buy Bitcoin directly flocked to these stocks as a proxy. Semler Scientific’s earnings call (as a newer Bitcoin-holding public company) highlighted this dynamic: “they [institutions] can’t own Bitcoin the commodity or Bitcoin ETFs… they are forced to own Bitcoin proxies like Bitcoin treasury stocks to get exposure” . This trend is part of the implication—the market effectively found equity vehicles (whether ETFs or corporates) to channel institutional money into Bitcoin. It’s an imperfect solution (adds company-specific risks), but it demonstrated demand. Now with ETFs, a purer solution exists, likely accelerating the flow of capital.
Bitcoin-Linked Debt (Credit Mandate): To engage fixed-income investors, innovative debt instruments have been issued. MicroStrategy, for instance, floated convertible bonds and corporate notes whose proceeds fund Bitcoin purchases. These bonds carry a fixed coupon and are repayable in cash, but their value is tied to MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin holdings performance. Such instruments allowed bond funds (which cannot buy crypto or equities) to participate in the Bitcoin trade through credit exposure . Additionally, the concept of Bitcoin-backed bonds (e.g. El Salvador’s “Bitcoin bonds” or potential asset-backed securities) began to materialize. While still niche, these point to an emerging class of “BTC credit” products. If structured properly (with collateral and ratings), they could fit into certain fixed-income portfolios. The image’s mention of “BTC Credit” implies these kinds of structured products that translate Bitcoin exposure into interest-bearing securities. The implication is that any mandate-constrained capital – even those limited to bonds – could eventually find a Bitcoin-linked instrument to invest in.
Structured & Alternative Products: Beyond plain ETFs and bonds, we see growth in structured notes, futures ETFs, and trusts. For example, commodity trusts (like Grayscale’s GBTC before conversion) were an early attempt, though often at high cost. Futures-based Bitcoin ETFs (commodity pools) were launched in 2021, but many institutions prefer the spot ETF now that it’s available. Also, derivatives (options, swaps on Bitcoin) have started trading on regulated exchanges, providing additional avenues for hedge funds and asset managers to gain synthetic exposure in a regulated way. The overarching trend is a financialization of Bitcoin: turning it from a standalone commodity into a suite of financial instruments that slot into portfolios just as gold ETFs, REITs, MLPs, or high-yield bonds do for their respective asset classes.
Implications for Adoption: These developments substantially lower the barriers for institutional adoption of Bitcoin. By creating equity-like and bond-like avenues, Bitcoin can be treated as just another asset class to allocate to, rather than a verboten commodity. The “30× more capital” is not just a theoretical ratio – it suggests that if even a small percentage of the $95T equity/bond pool shifts into Bitcoin exposure, it could dwarf the flows from the $3T commodity pool. We are already seeing the early signs: tens of billions flowing into Bitcoin ETFs within months . For instance, weekly inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs hit record levels in late 2024 and 2025 as institutions moved in, with BlackRock’s fund alone taking in nearly $1 billion in a single day during one market surge . This surge of accessible capital has been a factor in Bitcoin’s price reaching new highs (~$125k in 2025) , as “a new era in Bitcoin’s institutional adoption” unfolds .
In the longer term, broader Bitcoin adoption in institutional portfolios might mean: inclusion in balanced portfolios (e.g. a 60/40/bitcoin model), use of Bitcoin as an inflation hedge akin to gold, and even central banks potentially holding Bitcoin (an ultimate crossover from commodity to reserve asset, though that’s speculative). At a minimum, the availability of Bitcoin in equity/credit forms (like ETFs and notes) legitimizes it and integrates it into the financial system’s plumbing. It allows investment committees to discuss “How much Bitcoin exposure should we have?” in the same meeting as they discuss stocks and bonds, rather than it being off the table.
In conclusion, the data confirms: ~97% of institutional capital is tied to equity and credit mandates (versus ~3% commodities). The market size figures ~$35T/$60T/$3T underpin that point. Consequently, there is about 30× more capital available for Bitcoin if offered in equity or fixed-income wrappers instead of raw commodity form. Bitcoin’s current treatment as a commodity has indeed left it under-owned by institutions, but this is rapidly changing. The introduction of Bitcoin ETFs and structured products is bridging the gap – unleashing large-scale institutional flows into Bitcoin by fitting the asset into familiar mandates. These trends suggest that Bitcoin is transitioning from a fringe “commodity” holding toward a mainstream asset class, as evidenced by the swift growth of Bitcoin ETFs (nearly $100B in two years for IBIT) . If this trajectory continues, we can expect Bitcoin to play a more prominent role in institutional portfolios, supported by equity/credit instruments that make the asset accessible under existing capital allocation frameworks.
Sources: Recent financial studies and reports, including data from MSCI, OECD/PensionsAge, NAIC, Invesco Global Sovereign Asset Management Study, Global SWF research, and market news up to October 2025 , have been used to substantiate the above analysis. The estimates and examples provided reflect the 2023–2025 period and illustrate the shifting landscape of institutional investment in Bitcoin.