Goldman Sachs Just Told Its Wealthiest Clients to Buy the Crypto Dip — Here’s Why

The title of an invite-only client call that Goldman Sachs held in June 2020 was “US Economic Outlook & Implications of Current Policies for Inflation, Gold and Bitcoin.” The chief investment officer of the bank put together a slide that called Bitcoin a “conduit for illegal activity” and concluded that “a security whose appreciation is primarily dependent on whether someone else is willing to pay a higher price for it is not a suitable investment for our clients.” Another slide made reference to the 1630s Dutch tulip bubble. The response from the cryptocurrency community was predictable: rage. The Winklevoss twins responded on Twitter. The slides were compromised. Goldman’s stance appeared unchangeable.

Six years later, in late March 2026, Goldman analyst James Yaro sent a note to clients stating that cryptocurrency-related stocks, which had dropped 46% since October 2025, were exhibiting “volatile but flattish performance” in recent weeks, that valuations were getting more appealing, and that Goldman’s top picks in the market were rated “buy.” David Solomon, the CEO of the bank, has revealed that he owns a small quantity of Bitcoin. The gap between those two points in Goldman’s history is worth considering because it provides insight into the true state of institutional cryptocurrency adoption and explains why the timing of this specific call is more significant than it might seem.

It’s important to note that the note was specific because Goldman isn’t usually involved in ambiguous bullishness. Yaro listed three businesses with buy ratings: Coinbase, Figure Technologies, and Robinhood. The price target for Figure, which runs a blockchain-based home equity line of credit company, was increased from $39 to $42, suggesting a roughly 35 percent increase from present levels. Coinbase is branching out into cryptocurrency derivatives, subscriptions, and, somewhat unexpectedly, banking and stock trading. Robinhood is expanding into more general financial services and products for sophisticated traders. All three are expanding beyond basic cryptocurrency transaction fees in order to create business models that can withstand volatility without being totally reliant on trading volume. Goldman did add a warning: if trading volumes continue to decline, the sector’s 2026 revenue and profits could drop by 2% and 4%, respectively, with a median recovery period of roughly three months. To be honest, it prevents the call from sounding like cheerleading.

What makes the call truly intriguing is the larger market context. Following a severe selloff that saw it drop from about $75,000 to about $67,000, Bitcoin has been trading sideways in a band between $60,000 and $75,000 for the past month. Vetle Lunde, head of research at K33 Research, observed that when Bitcoin is below $100,000, fewer holders are likely to sell their positions, resulting in a sort of price anchoring effect. The heavy post-October distribution phase, when long-term holders and ETF investors were selling into strength, has probably ended, as evidenced by the slightly positive ETF flows since late February. In the language of the cryptocurrency market structure, low open interest in perpetual swap contracts and negative funding rates usually indicate that speculative leverage has been eliminated. These are the kinds of circumstances that typically precede recoveries rather than additional declines, but they are not necessarily bottom indicators.

The Wall Street broker Bernstein maintained a $150,000 year-end Bitcoin price target in its own note, echoing Goldman’s outlook. Strong ETF flows, increasing corporate treasury adoption, and the tenacity of Strategy—formerly known as MicroStrategy, which currently owns roughly $53.5 billion in Bitcoin—were all cited by Bernstein as proof of enduring institutional confidence. According to Bernstein, the correction since October is not a structural breakdown but rather a brief sentiment reset. Long-term investors are still drawn to Strategy’s preferred share offerings, which offer a continuous institutional floor beneath the market that wasn’t present in earlier cycles.

It’s important to note how different the current situation is from 2020, when Goldman’s skepticism was justified in a limited technical sense. There were no spot Bitcoin ETFs available at the time. It was still mostly theoretical for corporate treasuries to hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset. There was hardly any regulatory clarity. At least some of the claims that Bitcoin lacked institutional infrastructure and cash flow were true. Today, none of those circumstances exist. Bitcoin is valued at about $70 billion in BlackRock’s IBIT. Strategy has control over a position that would place it among the bigger institutional holders of any given asset class. The Bernstein and Goldman calls are taking place in a market where the plumbing—custody, regulation, ETF access, derivatives—actually functions and where those who inquire about Bitcoin during meetings with wealthy clients are no longer written off as anomalies.

Depending on your point of view, Goldman’s six-year transition from “not a suitable investment” to “buy the dip” was either a perfect institutional update as the facts changed or a surrender to market reality. It could be both. The bank has yet to demand that life savings be converted to Bitcoin. The note is specific, subtle, and includes volume risk warnings. However, the direction is clear. No Reddit post or crypto influencer video ever has the same effect on the institutional investor community as when Goldman Sachs informs its wealthiest clients that cryptocurrency valuations are starting to look appealing and lists three particular companies to purchase. Wall Street’s acceptance of cryptocurrency is no longer the question. It has. How much, how quickly, and whether or not the retail investors observing from the sidelines will read the room before the next move is made are the questions.