Bitcoin’s recent price weakness has reignited debate over quantum computing, with one high-profile investor arguing it is already shaping market behavior, and on-chain analysts saying the real driver is more traditional selling pressure.
Gold and silver continued to rise on Thursday, with gold rising 1.7% to a record $4,930 an ounce and silver jumping 3.7% to $96, while bitcoin fell back to just over $89,000, about 30% below its early October peak.
Since shortly after 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.
Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter kicked off the latest round of talks, saying 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 do not listen https://t.co/C30BO5Tj4A
– nic carter (@nic_carter) January 21, 2026
Others were not convinced. @_Checkmatey_, an onchain analyst at Checkonchain, argued that attributing the sideways price action to quantum fears is like blaming “red candle market manipulation” or currency balances for the rallies. In his opinion, the market has moved based on supply and positioning, not science fiction risk.
“Gold is in supply because sovereigns are buying it instead of Treasuries,” he said. “The trend has been going since 2008 and accelerates after February 22. Bitcoin saw selling by HODLers in 2025, which would have killed all previous bulls three times, and then once again.”
Prominent bitcoin investor and author Vijay Boyapati reflected his thoughts: “The real explanation is actually simply the unlocking of a huge supply once we hit a magic number for many whales (100,000).”
While I agree that quality control is a legitimate concern, and I appreciate your work on this (and don’t question your motives as others have), I think price stagnation invites narratives to fill the explanatory gap 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 discussed as a theoretical risk to bitcoin’s cryptographic fundamentals.
Advanced machines running algorithms like Shor’s could, in principle, break the elliptic curve cryptography used to secure wallets. However, most developers maintain that these machines are still decades away from practical implementation.
That view remains dominant among the bitcoin technical community. Blockstream co-founder Adam Back described the threat as extremely remote and said that even worst-case scenarios would not lead to an immediate or network-wide loss of funds. The Bitcoin 360 upgrade proposal, which would introduce quantum-resistant address formats, already outlines a gradual migration path should the need arise.
Still, the issue has gained renewed attention after some traditional financial figures expressed concern.
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 were ever necessary. That timeline is measured in years, not market cycles, making it an unlikely explanation for short-term price behavior.
