A Jefferies analyst dropped Bitcoin entirely, citing quantum computing as a cryptographic time bomb. It's not about the tech—it's about how institutions think about risk.
Why a Wall Street Analyst Just Dumped Bitcoin for Gold
Christopher Wood, global head of equity strategy at Jefferies, recently made a move that raised eyebrows across both traditional finance and crypto circles. He eliminated his 10% Bitcoin allocation and shifted it entirely into gold. His reason? Quantum computing.
Specifically, Wood is concerned that advances in quantum technology could eventually break the cryptographic protections securing Bitcoin. Researchers estimate that around 30% of Bitcoin's circulating supply remains in older address formats—legacy wallets that use cryptography more vulnerable to future quantum attacks. These are coins that haven't moved in years, some dating back to Bitcoin's earliest days.
Now, to be clear: quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin's encryption don't exist yet. The threat is theoretical, years away at minimum, and the Bitcoin protocol could theoretically upgrade its cryptography if needed. But that's not really the point.
What stood out to me here is that Wood isn't reacting to an immediate exploit or vulnerability. He's modeling for a long-tail risk that most crypto holders haven't even considered. That's how institutional analysts think—they don't just watch price charts or adoption curves. They stress-test assumptions, price in tail risks, and hedge against scenarios that might seem distant or unlikely.
Gold, by contrast, doesn't have a cryptographic dependency. It's physical, inert, and doesn't rely on computational assumptions to maintain value. From a risk management perspective, it's the ultimate hedge against technological obsolescence.
This kind of thinking reflects a broader tension in how traditional finance views digital assets. Bitcoin's value proposition has always rested on its decentralized security model—trustless, cryptographic, and immutable. But if that cryptography becomes attackable, even in theory, the entire foundation gets questioned. And once that doubt enters institutional risk frameworks, capital moves, regardless of whether the threat ever materializes.
It's worth noting that Bitcoin's developer community is aware of quantum risks and has discussed migration paths to quantum-resistant cryptography. But protocol upgrades require consensus, coordination, and time—variables that don't fit neatly into a risk model.
What's interesting here isn't whether quantum computing will break Bitcoin tomorrow. It's that a seasoned Wall Street analyst is already adjusting allocations based on the possibility. That tells you something about how fragile confidence can be when perception shifts, even if the underlying technology hasn't changed at all.
0 Comments