- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
Charles Edwards, founder of quantitative crypto fund Capriole, has warned that Bitcoin could fall below $50,000 if the network fails to implement quantum-resistant security upgrades by 2028, calling the threat an existential risk that the market is underestimating.
Edwards argued that Bitcoin’s transparent blockchain and immutable transaction history make it more vulnerable to quantum computing attacks than traditional financial systems, which can reverse fraudulent transactions and update security protocols without public consensus.
The concern centres on quantum computing’s theoretical ability to break the cryptographic algorithms that secure Bitcoin wallets and transactions.
While today’s quantum machines remain limited, researchers agree that sufficiently powerful systems could eventually derive private keys from public information, allowing attackers to drain funds or manipulate transaction histories.
Edwards argues that this threat is no longer a distant, abstract possibility. In a post on X this week, he suggested that Bitcoin’s price could suffer dramatically if the community underestimates the pace of technological progress and delays meaningful upgrades.
“Starting to think we will just need a huge bear market to wash out the idiots who think the Quantum threat to Bitcoin is a joke and to incentivise the maxis into taking action to upgrade the network,” — Charles Edwards, Founder, Capriole.
According to Edwards, the market impact would be severe and sustained until a fix is deployed. “If we haven’t deployed a fix by 2028, I expect Bitcoin will be sub-$50K and continue to fall until it’s fixed,” he added.
For crypto investors, the warning reframes quantum computing from a theoretical risk into a potential valuation driver, one that could influence long-term price trajectories and portfolio strategies.
Skeptics often counter that quantum computing is still decades away from posing a practical threat and that traditional financial institutions or government systems would be targeted long before Bitcoin. Edwards disputes this view, arguing that Bitcoin’s transparent ledger and immutable transactions make it uniquely exposed.
“Most banks and institutions are already migrating to post-quantum encryption, and fraudulent transactions can be wound back or blocked,” Edwards said in a follow-up post. “Bitcoin doesn’t have those luxuries.”
In Edwards’ assessment, this asymmetry puts Bitcoin “first on the quantum chopping block.” While banks can reverse suspicious transfers and update security frameworks behind closed doors, Bitcoin requires open-source consensus and broad agreement to implement changes—often a slow and contentious process.
He has repeatedly called for a quantum-resistant upgrade to be rolled out as early as 2026 to allow sufficient time for adoption before the perceived risk window closes.
“We have to fix this next year, or bon voyage, enjoy the biggest Bitcoin bear market in history,” Edwards warned. “FTX will look like a cakewalk.”
Not all industry veterans share Edwards’ sense of urgency. Some argue that fears around quantum computing are overstated, pointing to the significant engineering hurdles that remain before such machines can threaten modern cryptography at scale.
Bitcoin analyst and early adopter Willy Woo has taken a more pragmatic stance, suggesting interim steps rather than alarm. He recently noted that holding BTC in SegWit wallets could help reduce exposure while the ecosystem works toward a longer-term solution.
“A way to keep your Bitcoin safe until there’s a solution to the quantum BTC threat is to hold BTC in a SegWit wallet for around seven years,” — Willy Woo, BTC analyst.
Others are even more dismissive. MicroStrategy executive chairman and prominent Bitcoin bull Michael Saylor has publicly downplayed the issue, framing quantum fears as a narrative-driven distraction rather than a genuine threat.
“Quantum computing is mostly a marketing ploy to pump quantum-branded tokens,” — Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman, MicroStrategy.
This divergence highlights a broader tension in the crypto market: how to balance technological optimism with risk management, especially when potential threats are uncertain but potentially catastrophic.
For crypto investors, the debate is less about predicting the exact year quantum computers become dangerous and more about assessing preparedness.
Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition rests heavily on its security and trustlessness. Any credible doubt about the safety of stored funds could undermine confidence, even before an actual attack occurs.
Edwards’ warning suggests that markets may eventually price in this risk, particularly if visible progress toward quantum resistance stalls. Conversely, a clear roadmap and early implementation of post-quantum solutions could reinforce BTC’s resilience and long-term appeal.
As the 2028 timeline enters investor conversations, the question is no longer whether quantum computing matters, but when the market will decide it does. For now, the countdown has begun—and the response from developers, miners, and holders alike may shape Bitcoin’s next major cycle.
