The threat of quantum computers to Bitcoin is often dismissed as remote, but if you look closer, you may realize that the consequences are already beginning to show.
Recent research and institutional measures suggest that the clock may be ticking faster than expected.
Quantum computing is already affecting Bitcoin, but not in the way you expect.
Bitcoin's recent weaker performance against gold is drawing renewed attention among institutional investors. However, this is not due to traditional market forces, but rather the risks associated with quantum computers (QC) that may one day threaten Bitcoin's cryptography.
Strategists now view these threats as more than theoretical and are changing portfolio allocations and initiating debates about Bitcoin's long-term security.
BeInCrypto reported that Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood removed a 10% Bitcoin allocation from his flagship portfolio "Greed & Fear," and moved the funds to physical gold and mining stocks.
Wood expressed concerns that quantum computers could break Bitcoin's Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) keys, thereby undermining its position as a store of value.
"Financial advisors read this type of research and keep clients' Bitcoin allocation low or zero because quantum computers are an existential threat. It acts as a brake on BTC until this is resolved," wrote batsoupyum, a popular user on X.
Research supports this caution. A Chaincode Labs study for 2025 estimates that 20–50% of the circulating Bitcoin addresses may be vulnerable to future quantum attacks due to reused public keys. Around 6.26 million BTC, worth between $650 billion and $750 billion, may be at risk.
At the same time, the Projection Calculator graph shows this threatening risk with exponential growth in quantum computers' capacity over time.
As the number of qubits in quantum computers increases, especially after Google's milestones for 2025, the potential for cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQC) becomes more likely.
Bitcoin's decentralized structure amplifies the challenge. Unlike traditional banks, which can implement quantum-safe upgrades through a central authority, Bitcoin must coordinate changes across a distributed network.
There is no risk committee, no mandate, and no single entity that can enforce immediate measures.
"Previously, I dismissed the risk from quantum computers (QC) for Bitcoin as unlikely. I no longer do that. The common objection is: QC has not been a threat for many years, and if it becomes one, the entire financial system is in trouble anyway... [Bitcoin] can be technically upgraded. But this requires slow and messy coordination across a decentralized network. No one can say 'now we switch,'" noted Jamie Coutts.
Quantum computers' risk casts an increasing shadow over Bitcoin's institutional appeal
The market has begun to reflect these concerns. Bitcoin's price development so far this year against gold is down 6.5% in 2026, while gold has risen 55%. The BTC/gold ratio of 19.26 in January 2026 corresponds with advisors' caution.
Institutions react differently. While Wood has reduced his exposure, Harvard is reportedly increasing its Bitcoin allocation by nearly 240%.
Similarly, Morgan Stanley began recommending its wealth clients allocate up to 4% of their portfolio to digital assets. Similarly, Bank of America allows allocation between 1% and 4%.
This shows that support does not disappear but becomes more dispersed depending on different risk assessments.
Some still believe that quantum risk is low probability but has a significant impact. David Duong from Coinbase points to two major threats: that quantum computers could break ECDSA keys and that they target SHA-256, which underlies Bitcoin's proof-of-work system.
Vulnerable addresses include older Pay-to-Public-Key scripts, certain multi-signature wallets, and exposed Taproot setups.
"Address discipline," avoiding reused addresses and moving coins to quantum-safe addresses, is considered a central protection strategy.
Post-quantum cryptographic standards completed by NIST in 2024 provide a roadmap for future protection. Nevertheless, implementation in Bitcoin remains complex.
Charles Hoskinson from Cardano warns that premature adoption may significantly reduce effectiveness. At the same time, DARPA's Quantum Blockchain Initiative suggests that real threats could emerge in the 2030s.
However, the rapid developments shown in the forecast chart suggest that the timeline may accelerate, especially if AI integration speeds up quantum developments.
The question of quantum computers has moved from theory to actual impact on portfolios. Bitcoin's weak performance reflects not only market cycles. It also reflects the increasing risk of existential threats, which affects how institutions allocate capital and forces the network to face a technical challenge it has never encountered before.
Until Bitcoin's decentralized system can fully coordinate a quantum-resistant upgrade, the "burden" around BTC remains real.