Bitcoin’s status as “digital gold” is challenged by the quantum computing threat, which has prompted strategic shifts.
A new fracture line is faced on Wall Street regarding the consensus that Bitcoin has matured into “digital gold,” one that has little to do with daily price volatility and everything to do with the distant future of computing.
Diametrically opposed roadmaps are currently being offered to global allocators for the world’s largest crypto asset by two prominent strategists named Wood.
On Jan. 16, the long-standing Bitcoin exposure of Jefferies was eliminated by Christopher Wood, with the existential threat posed by quantum computing being cited as the cause.
On the other hand, investors are being urged by Cathie Wood of ARK Invest to look past technical anxieties and focus on the asset’s distinct lack of correlation with traditional markets.
A critical evolution in how crypto assets are being underwritten by institutional capital in 2026 is highlighted by this divergence. The debate is no longer merely about whether Bitcoin is a speculative token or a store of value.
A shift has been made toward a more complex calculation regarding survivability, governance, and the specific type of hedge that is believed by investors to be what they are buying.
A Quantum Exit Strategy
A reputation for navigating market sentiment via the “Greed & Fear” newsletter was built by Christopher Wood, the global head of equity strategy at Jefferies.
A 10% Bitcoin allocation was removed entirely from his model portfolio, a move that cuts against the grain of two years of institutional accumulation.
In the reallocation, the 10% Bitcoin sleeve was shifted by Jefferies into assets with older narratives: 5% into physical gold and 5% into gold-mining stocks.
The rationale is rooted in tail risk rather than immediate market dynamics. It was argued by Wood that the cryptography securing the Bitcoin network could eventually be undermined by advances in quantum computing.
While quantum threats are still filed under “science projects” by most investors, the possibility is being treated by Jefferies as a disqualifying factor for pension-style, long-horizon capital.
Validation for this anxiety is being found among technical experts who argue the timeline for a threat is compressing faster than markets realize.
It was argued by Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole, that Bitcoin could be broken by a quantum computer in just 2 to 9 years without an upgrade, with a high probability being placed in the 4- to 5-year range.
The market is described by Edwards as having entered a “Quantum Event Horizon,” a critical threshold where the frontier risk of a hack is roughly equal to the time required for upgrade consensus to be reached and a rollout to be executed.
In the Jefferies framing, the uncomfortable reality is that Bitcoin will someday be cracked by a quantum computer because security assumptions are rested upon cryptographic primitives that are vulnerable to those powerful future machines.
The specific threat involves exposed public keys being “harvested” now by adversaries so they can be stored and the private keys decrypted later when hardware matures.
More than 4 million BTC are estimated to be held in vulnerable addresses due to reuse or older formats. This leaves a “harvest now, decrypt later” attack vector by which a massive share of the total supply could be compromised.
Quantum Computing Is Not a Near-Term Threat to Bitcoin
The 2026 market conversation has been grounded by Grayscale, one of the largest digital-asset managers, through the labeling of quantum vulnerability as a “red herring” for this year.
It is suggested by its analysis that, while the threat is real, prices are unlikely to be driven by it in the near term.
In light of this, it was argued by Grayscale that most blockchains and much of the broader economy will eventually require post-quantum upgrades regardless.
This view is aligned with developments currently being seen within the crypto sector.
The “immediate doom” narrative has also been countered by Andre Dragosch, Bitwise Europe’s Head of Research, through an emphasis on the sheer computational gulf between current technology and a viable attack.
While concerns about older wallets were validated by Dragosch, he argues that extraordinary robustness remains characteristic of the network itself.
“Bitcoin now runs at 1 zeta hash per second, equivalent to more than one million El Capitan-class supercomputers. That’s orders of magnitude beyond the reach of today’s quantum machines – and even beyond those expected in the foreseeable future.”
He wrote:
The Investment Case for Bitcoin
In light of the above, the argument that Bitcoin belongs in modern portfolios is being doubled down on by ARK Invest precisely because it behaves unlike anything else.
In a 2026 outlook note, correlations rather than ideology were leaned upon by ARK’s Cathie Wood.
A clinical argument is made by her: Bitcoin’s return stream has remained weakly linked to major asset classes since 2020, therefore offering a way to improve portfolio efficiency.
This view was supported by ARK with a correlation matrix using weekly returns from January 2020 through January 2026. According to the data, Bitcoin’s correlation is shown at 0.14 with gold and 0.06 with bonds.
Perhaps most strikingly, the S&P 500’s correlation with bonds is shown by the table to be higher than Bitcoin’s correlation with gold.
This data is used by Wood to argue that Bitcoin should be viewed as a valuable diversifier for asset allocators seeking higher returns per unit of risk in the years ahead.
A subtle but important shift in messaging is represented by this change. Bitcoin is being reframed by ARK from “a newer version of gold” into “an uncorrelated return stream with asymmetric upside.”
Redefining the Hedge Strategy
For investors watching the split between two of the market’s high-profile strategists, it is not suggested that Bitcoin is broken. Instead, the institutional narrative is being matured into something more demanding.
It is effectively being said by Jefferies that a hedge which might require a contentious protocol-level migration is not the same as physical gold, even if both assets can rally in the same macro regime.
This is because coordination, upgrades, or governance are not required by gold to remain a valid asset. On the other hand, Bitcoin is a hedge that ultimately depends on its ability to adapt.
Conversely, a counterargument is made that traditional finance faces greater near-term peril from quantum computing than Bitcoin does.
“Banks depend heavily on long-lived RSA/ECC keys across authentication and interbank communications. Once quantum machines can break these, systemic attacks become possible – far earlier than any realistic threat to Bitcoin’s decentralized architecture.”
Dragosch said:
With this in mind, it is effectively being said by ARK that the benefits of portfolio diversification can justify a BTC position, even if the asset is still evolving.
Consequently, the question that hangs over these cases is whether a post-quantum transition can be credibly coordinated by Bitcoin without splintering the social consensus that gives it monetary value.
