The threat of quantum computing to Bitcoin is often seen as distant, but a closer analysis indicates that its impact may already be starting to appear.
Recent research and institutional movements suggest that the clock may be ticking faster than expected.
The weak performance of Bitcoin compared to gold has once again attracted criticism from institutional investors. However, the reason is not only traditional market forces, but also the risks associated with quantum computing (QC), which may, in the future, compromise its cryptographic security.
Strategists are beginning to consider these threats more concretely, altering portfolio allocations and fueling debates about the long-term security of Bitcoin.
BeInCrypto reported that strategist Christopher Wood from Jefferies removed a 10% position in Bitcoin from his main model portfolio 'Greed & Fear', transferring resources to physical gold and mining stocks.
Wood justified the decision for fearing that quantum computing could break the keys of the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) of Bitcoin, putting into question its thesis of value reserve.
"Financial advisors read this type of study and keep their clients' allocations low or nonexistent because quantum computing is an existential threat. This will weigh on BTC until this issue is resolved," stated batsoupyum, a well-known user on X.
Research reinforces this caution. A study by Chaincode Labs for 2025 estimates that 20% to 50% of Bitcoin addresses in circulation would be vulnerable to future quantum attacks due to the reuse of public keys. About 6,26 million BTC — valued between $650 billion and $750 billion — could be exposed.
At the same time, the Projection Calculator graph indicates the expansion of this risk, showing the exponential growth of quantum hardware capacity over time.
With the increase in the number of qubits in quantum machines, especially after milestones achieved by Google in 2025, the possibility of the existence of so-called cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) grows.
The decentralized structure of Bitcoin amplifies the challenge. Unlike traditional banks, which can impose secure updates via centralized authority, Bitcoin relies on coordination among various participants in its distributed network.
There is no risk committee, nor determination, nor an entity capable of imposing immediate measures.
"I used to dismiss the risks of quantum computing (QC) to Bitcoin as unlikely. I no longer think that way. The common argument is: QC hasn't been a threat for years, and if it is, then the entire financial system is at risk... [Bitcoin] can, technically, be updated. But this requires slow and complex coordination in a decentralized network. No one can just decide 'let's change now'," commented Jamie Coutts.
The risk of quantum computing amplifies concerns about the institutional attractiveness of Bitcoin
The market is already beginning to reflect these concerns. Bitcoin's performance in 2026 was 6.5% below gold, while the metal had a rise of 55%. The BTC/gold ratio of 19.26 in January 2026 reinforces the cautious positioning of advisors.
Institutions adopt different strategies in light of the scenario. While Wood reduced exposure, Harvard increased its allocation in Bitcoin by about 240%.
Similarly, Morgan Stanley has begun to guide wealth management clients to allocate up to 4% of their portfolios to digital assets. Bank of America allows allocations between 1% and 4%.
This demonstrates that support has not disappeared but has become more fragmented as risk assessments differ.
Despite this, some experts consider the quantum risk unlikely but of high impact. David Duong from Coinbase highlights two main threats: quantum computers breaking ECDSA keys and also targeting SHA-256, the basis of Bitcoin's proof-of-work system.
Vulnerable addresses include old Pay-to-Public-Key scripts, some multisig wallets, and exposed Taproot implementations.
Maintaining good practices, avoiding address reuse, and transferring assets to quantum-resistant addresses are fundamental mitigation strategies.
Post-quantum cryptography standards finalized by NIST in 2024 offer a guide for future protection. Still, adoption for Bitcoin remains a complex process.
Charles Hoskinson from Cardano warns that premature adoption could significantly reduce efficiency. Meanwhile, DARPA's Quantum Blockchain Initiative points out that relevant threats may arise in the 2030s.
However, the accelerated advancement, evidenced by the projection graph, indicates that the timeline may be moved up, especially if AI integration compresses quantum development.
The issue of quantum computing has moved from the theoretical realm to concretely impacting wallets. The underperformance of Bitcoin reflects not only market cycles but also the growing weight of existential risk, influencing capital distribution by institutions and forcing the network to deal with an unprecedented technical challenge.
Until the decentralized system of Bitcoin can fully coordinate a quantum-resistant update, the 'burden' on BTC remains a real concern.