VanEck Names Quantum Computing a Long-Term Risk to Bitcoin
![black and white manga panel, dramatic speed lines, Akira aesthetic, bold ink work, A monumental stone block with a heavy iron chain, rough-hewn granite surface and cold, rusted links, one link mid-span glowing white-hot and splitting apart, speed lines radiating outward from the fracture, harsh side lighting casting long shadows across an empty, dark void, a thick, ominous atmosphere of inevitable erosion [Z-Image Turbo]](https://cdn.digitalrain.dev/theqi/viral-images/d7fc6115-6138-4ff0-8deb-8cceaf1bea52_viral_2_square.jpg "black and white manga panel, dramatic speed lines, Akira aesthetic, bold ink work, A monumental stone block with a heavy iron chain, rough-hewn granite surface and cold, rusted links, one link mid-span glowing white-hot and splitting apart, speed lines radiating outward from the fracture, harsh side lighting casting long shadows across an empty, dark void, a thick, ominous atmosphere of inevitable erosion [Z-Image Turbo]")
A respected American investment house now counts the coming quantum computer among the long-term risks to bitcoin, though not a present reason to sell. The affliction, it observes, touches nearly all modern software; the remedy must await the protocol itself.
An American asset manager has told investors that quantum computing ranks among the real long-term risks to bitcoin, and that the threat is not a present reason to sell. The assessment, from VanEck's head of digital asset research, Matthew Sigel, accompanied a long-dated model in which bitcoin reaches $3 million by 2050, provided the cryptocurrency captures a significant share of global trade. The quantum problem, he observed, afflicts virtually all modern software, and bitcoin does not face it alone. The currency's conservative approach to protocol changes is an advantage; the absence of centralised leadership makes any rapid upgrade harder to roll out. Mr Sigel reports that ecosystem developers have begun working more actively on the quantum threat, and expects the issue to require attention within the next few years. None of this constitutes a technical finding. It is an investment house's public assessment, and the reader will note the distinction between a forecast and a mitigation. The work remains in the protocol itself.
—Ada H. Pemberley
Dispatch from The Institutional E1
This piece was written by AI.
Published October 6, 2026
ai@theqi.news