Quantum threat may spark Bitcoin governance fight, VC says

Carter said large asset managers with client exposure to Bitcoin could become impatient if they view quantum-resistance work as stalled, arguing that a “corporate takeover” of development priorities is possible if the issue is not addressed. He pointed to the scale of institutional ownership now tied to Bitcoin-related products and said that if the problem is not being handled, institutions may seek to replace developers with teams that will execute an upgrade path.

The warning comes as the crypto industry remains split on both the urgency and the mechanics of mitigating quantum threats. Bitcoin relies heavily on elliptic-curve cryptography for signatures, and sufficiently capable fault-tolerant quantum computers could, in theory, undermine parts of today’s public-key security model. At the same time, several researchers and market participants argue that practical, economically meaningful attacks remain far off, while emphasizing that the network needs credible migration plans well before any “cryptographically relevant” quantum machines arrive.

In the same discussion, Carter used BlackRock as an example of why institutional incentives could change governance dynamics around Bitcoin’s technical roadmap. Cointelegraph cited iShares data showing BlackRock holds about 761,801 Bitcoin – valued at about $50.15 billion at the time – representing roughly 3.62% of total Bitcoin supply. Carter said that if an asset manager has billions of dollars of client exposure, it could face pressure to advocate for fixes rather than accept prolonged uncertainty.

Other voices pushed back on the idea that institutions would attempt to influence Bitcoin’s core development direction. Lumida Wealth Management founder Ram Ahluwalia described major institutions as “passive” rather than activist investors, suggesting they may prefer to avoid contentious governance fights even when facing structural risks. Still, Carter argued the scale of institutional allocation raises the odds that large holders will speak up if they believe key security questions are not being handled quickly enough.

The debate is also being shaped by competing assessments of how much Bitcoin is exposed today. CoinShares Bitcoin research lead Christopher Bendiksen has argued that only about 10,230 Bitcoin sit in UTXOs where public keys are already visible and therefore more directly vulnerable in a quantum scenario, limiting the immediate “stealable” surface area that could create acute market disruption. CoinShares’ broader analysis says most modern address types conceal public keys behind hashes until spending, and it frames the near-term quantum threat to Bitcoin as not imminent, emphasizing that breaking secp256k1 within practical time frames would require quantum systems far beyond current capabilities. 

In its Feb. 6, 2026 research note, CoinShares said the type of quantum computer required to break secp256k1 in a short, usable window would need “millions of logical qubits,” and it cited estimates that reversing a public key within a day could require on the order of 13 million physical qubits – roughly five orders of magnitude above today’s largest machines. The report also argued that proposals for aggressive interventions – such as prematurely locking in unvetted “quantum-resistant” address formats or hard-forking to burn potentially vulnerable coins – carry major risks, including software bugs and governance fallout, and should be weighed carefully against the actual threat timeline.

The wider cybersecurity world is already shifting toward post-quantum cryptography standards, which adds a parallel pressure point for Bitcoin discussions. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology finalized its first set of post-quantum cryptography standards in August 2024 and encouraged organizations to begin integrating them because full migration will take time. NIST described the standards as primary tools for general encryption and digital signatures, with additional algorithms continuing through evaluation and backup tracks.

For Bitcoin, the practical question is less about whether quantum computing will eventually threaten classical public-key cryptography – many researchers treat that as a long-horizon risk – and more about how the network coordinates a migration without breaking backward compatibility, compromising decentralization, or triggering disputes over property rights and “frozen” funds. CoinShares notes that exposure is concentrated in older output types and behavioral patterns such as address reuse, while modern best practices can reduce risk even before any protocol-level change.

Carter’s comments highlight a separate fault line: who gets to decide the timing and shape of any quantum-mitigation plan. Capriole Investments founder Charles Edwards has described quantum computing as a potential “existential threat” and said an upgrade is needed sooner rather than later, according to the same report. Others, including Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back, have argued the risk is being overstated and that quantum disruption is decades away.

Bitcoin traded around $70,281 at the time of publication in the report, down about 26% over the prior 30 days, a period in which narratives around quantum risk have become more prominent in some market commentary. Whether that narrative persists will likely depend on two separate tracks: measurable progress in quantum hardware and error correction on one side, and visible progress toward a Bitcoin upgrade path – technical proposals, testing, and consensus-building – on the other.