The shift is becoming visible in how some long-term investors reassess Bitcoin’s role as a store of value.
Concerns over quantum computing are beginning to influence long-term Bitcoin allocations. A major market strategist has removed Bitcoin from a model portfolio due to future security risks. The debate centers on whether cryptography underpinning Bitcoin could be challenged over time. Some investors are favoring gold for its long track record amid technological uncertainty.
From Macro Hedge to Technological Question
Christopher Wood, global head of equity strategy at Jefferies, has removed Bitcoin entirely from his model portfolio, reversing a position he first adopted during the stimulus-heavy years of the pandemic. Instead of responding to price action or regulation, Wood’s decision reflects a deeper concern: whether future advances in computing could challenge the assumptions underpinning Bitcoin’s security.
In his view, Bitcoin’s appeal to long-horizon investors weakens if quantum computing progresses faster than markets currently expect. What matters is not whether today’s machines pose a threat, but whether the timeline for meaningful quantum capability is shortening enough to introduce uncertainty for portfolios designed to span decades.
Why Quantum Computing Changes the Conversation
Bitcoin relies on cryptographic systems to secure wallets, validate transactions, and govern mining. With classical computers, breaking these systems is effectively infeasible. Quantum computers, however, could theoretically perform calculations that allow private keys to be inferred from public data, undermining ownership guarantees.
That possibility extends beyond individual wallets. Mining and consensus are also rooted in cryptographic assumptions. If those assumptions were compromised, Bitcoin’s narrative as a scarce, durable digital asset would come under pressure. For investors focused on long-term capital preservation, even a low-probability but high-impact risk becomes difficult to ignore.
A Reversal From Early Conviction
Wood’s exit is notable because he was an early institutional supporter of Bitcoin. He added it to his portfolio in late 2020, when fears of currency debasement and aggressive monetary policy drove interest in alternatives. The allocation was later increased to 10%, reflecting confidence in Bitcoin’s macro role.
That exposure has now been replaced with traditional hedges: physical gold and gold-mining equities. The reallocation signals a return to assets with long histories of surviving technological and geopolitical shifts, rather than a short-term judgment on crypto prices.
A Widening Gap Between Capital and Builders
The quantum debate has intensified over the past year, especially after market volatility reignited questions about long-term security. Developers largely argue that quantum threats are distant and manageable through protocol upgrades. Some investors, however, see the lack of consensus itself as a problem.
Figures such as Nic Carter of Castle Island Ventures have argued that capital markets are taking the risk more seriously than developers, a claim disputed by prominent Bitcoin technologists including Adam Back of Blockstream. The disagreement highlights a growing disconnect between technical roadmaps and investor risk tolerance.
What This Signals for Bitcoin’s Role
Wood’s move does not suggest that quantum computing poses an immediate threat to Bitcoin. Instead, it reflects how future-facing risks are starting to matter more in portfolio construction. For some allocators, Bitcoin is shifting from a pure macro hedge to an asset whose long-term viability depends on technological adaptation.
Gold, by contrast, benefits from having already weathered centuries of technological change. In a world where computing power itself could reshape financial security, that history is regaining appeal.
The broader takeaway is not about abandoning Bitcoin, but about how emerging technologies are reshaping the way investors think about digital assets. As quantum computing advances, even gradually, its implications are beginning to influence how capital is allocated long before the technology itself becomes widely usable.