Bitcoin’s recent price weakness has reignited the debate over quantum computing, with one prominent investor saying it’s already shaping market behavior – and on-chain analysts saying the real driver is more old-fashioned selling pressure.
Gold and silver continued to rise on Thursday, with gold rising 1.7% to a record $4,930 an ounce and silver rising 3.7% to $96, while bitcoin returned to just above $89,000, about 30% below its early October peak.
Since Trump’s election victory in November 2024, bitcoin is down 2.6%, compared to gains of 205% for silver, 83% for gold, 24% for the Nasdaq and 17.6% for the S&P 500.
Nic Carter, partner at Castle Island Ventures, kicked off the latest round of discussions, claiming that Bitcoin’s “mysterious” underperformance is “due to quantum” and calling it “the only story that matters this year.”
Bitcoin’s “mysterious” underperformance (due to quantum) is the only story that matters this year. The market speaks, developers don’t listen https://t.co/C30BO5Tj4A
– nic carter (@nic_carter) January 21, 2026
Others weren’t convinced. @_Checkmatey_, an onchain analyst at Checkonchain, argued that blaming lateral price action on quantum fears is akin to blaming “market manipulation for red candles” or FX balances for rallies. According to him, the market evolves according to offer and positioning, and not according to science fiction risk.
“Gold is in supply because governments are buying it instead of Treasuries,” he said. “The trend has been in place since 2008 and accelerates after February 22. Bitcoin saw the sell side from HODLers in 2025, which would have killed all previous bulls three times and then one more time.”
Prominent Bitcoin investor and author Vijay Boyapati reflected these thoughts: “The real explanation is really just the unlocking of a huge supply once we hit a magic number for a large number of whales (100,000).”
While I agree that quality control is a legitimate concern and appreciate your work on this topic (and don’t question your motives as others have), I think that price locking invites narratives to fill the explanatory void when, in my opinion, the real explanation is really just the unlocking of a…
– Vijay Boyapati (@real_vijay) January 21, 2026
Quantum computing has long been considered a theoretical risk to Bitcoin’s cryptographic underpinnings.
Advanced machines running algorithms like Shor’s could, in principle, break the elliptic curve cryptography used to secure wallets. However, most developers say such machines are still decades away from practical deployment.
This view remains dominant within the Bitcoin technical community. Blockstream co-founder Adam Back described the threat as extremely remote, saying that even worst-case scenarios would not result in an immediate or network-wide loss of funds. The Bitcoin 360 enhancement proposal, which would introduce quantum-resistant address formats, already outlines a gradual migration path should the need arise.
Yet the topic has received renewed attention after some mainstream finance figures 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.
