Bitcoin’s recent price weakness has revived the quantum computing debate, with one high-profile investor claiming it is already shaping market behavior – and on-chain analysts say the real driver is more old-fashioned selling pressure.
Gold and silver continued to rally on Thursday, with gold rising 1.7% to a record high of $4,930 per ounce. ounce and silver rose 3.7% to $96, while bitcoin fell back to just above $89,000, about 30% below its peak in early October.
Since just after Trump’s November 2024 election victory, bitcoin has fallen 2.6%, compared to gains of 205% for silver, 83% for gold, 24% for the Nasdaq and 17.6% for the S&P 500.
Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter kicked off the latest chatter, saying Bitcoin’s “mysterious” underperformance is “due to quant,” calling it “the only story that matters this year.”
Bitcoin’s “mysterious” underperformance (due to quant) is the only story that matters this year. The market speaks, the developers don’t listen https://t.co/C30BO5Tj4A
— nic carter (@nic_carter) 21 January 2026
Others were not convinced. @_Checkmatey_, an onchain analyst at Checkonchain, argued that perpetuating sideways price action on quantum fear is like blaming “market manipulation for red candles” or exchange balances for rallies. In his view, the market has moved on supply and positioning, not sci-fi risk.
“Gold has a bid because governments buy it instead of treasuries,” he said. “The trend has been in place since 2008 and is accelerating after Feb-22. Bitcoin saw the sell side from HODLers in 2025, which would have killed every previous bull three times, and then one more time.”
Prominent bitcoin investor and author Vijay Boyapati reflected: “The real explanation is really just the release of a huge supply once we’ve hit a magic number for a lot of whales (100k).”
While I agree that QC is a legitimate concern, and I appreciate your work on this (and don’t question your motives as others have), I think the price drop invites narratives to fill the explanatory void when, imo, the real explanation is really just the release of a…
— Vijay Boyapati (@real_vijay) 21 January 2026
Quantum computing has long been discussed as a theoretical risk to bitcoin’s cryptographic foundations.
Advanced machines running algorithms like Shors could in principle break the elliptic curve cryptography used to secure wallets. However, most developers argue that such machines remain decades away from practical implementation.
That view remains dominant among bitcoin’s technical community. Blockstream co-founder Adam Back has described the threat as extremely remote, saying that even worst-case scenarios would not lead to an immediate or network-wide loss of funds. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360, which will introduce quantum-resistant address formats, already outlines a gradual migration path should the need arise.
Still, the topic has received renewed attention after some traditional financial numbers have raised concerns.
Earlier this month, Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood removed bitcoin from a model portfolio, citing quantum computing as a long-term risk factor.
As CoinDesk previously reported, the real challenge is not whether bitcoin can adapt to a quantum future, but how long such an upgrade would take, if it ever becomes necessary. This timeline is measured in years, not market cycles, making it an unlikely explanation for short-term price behavior.
