Jefferies’ Christopher Wood Exits Bitcoin as Quantum Threats Loom

Christopher Wood, the global head of equity strategy at Jefferies, has decided to exclude Bitcoin from his model portfolio after four years, citing rising concerns that quantum computing could jeopardize the cryptocurrency’s security. By reallocating his investment into physical gold and gold-mining stocks, Wood emphasizes the potential risks posed by advancements in quantum technology. His decision resonates with increasing apprehension within the Bitcoin community regarding these threats.

Key Takeaways

Christopher Wood has removed Bitcoin from his model portfolio due to fears over quantum computing.
His allocation is now divided between physical gold and gold-mining stocks.
A significant portion of the Bitcoin community believes quantum threats are imminent.
The discussion around quantum risk is dividing opinions among key figures in the cryptocurrency space.
Approximately 30% of Bitcoin's circulating supply may be vulnerable to quantum attacks.

Rising Quantum Threats Prompt Change in Strategy

Christopher Wood, the global head of equity strategy at Jefferies, has recently taken Bitcoin out of his investment model after four years. His decision comes amid growing concerns that the advancements in quantum computing could compromise the security of this leading cryptocurrency.

As reported by Bloomberg, Wood has chosen to replace his previous 10% allocation in Bitcoin with an equal investment in physical gold and gold-mining stocks. He emphasized that the rapid development in quantum technology represents a significant risk to Bitcoin's long-term status as a store of value.

In his newsletter titled “Greed & Fear,” Wood outlined that many within the Bitcoin community now believe that quantum computing advancements are likely to occur in just a few years, rather than being a distant threat.

He cautioned that if Bitcoin’s cryptographic framework were to be compromised, it could lead to existential doubts regarding Bitcoin’s role as a reliable digital alternative to gold.

The Bitcoin Community Divided Over Quantum Risks

The conversation surrounding quantum risks has escalated significantly in recent months, leading to a split among notable figures in the cryptocurrency sector.

Nic Carter from Castle Island Ventures has criticized some Bitcoin developers for being “in denial” about the potential dangers posed by quantum computing. He highlighted that substantial investments are being funneled into quantum computing advancements, while the U.S. government aims to phase out classical encryption methods by 2030.

In response, Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, rebuffed Carter's assertions, claiming that developers are already working on quantum defenses without causing unnecessary panic in the market.

Carter remains firm in his stance, arguing that significant funding is being raised to create quantum computers capable of breaking elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), which is critical to Bitcoin's operation.

During the All-In Summit 2025, Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko underscored the urgency of the situation, stating that there is a 50% chance of achieving a quantum breakthrough in five years. He urged that Bitcoin should transition to quantum-resistant signatures to safeguard against these advancements.

Significant Vulnerability in Bitcoin Supply

Security experts estimate that around 30% of Bitcoin's circulating supply could be susceptible to quantum vulnerabilities under specific circumstances.

David Duong, Global Head of Investment Research at Coinbase, revealed that approximately 6.51 million BTC resides in address types that are more exposed to potential long-range quantum attacks. These include legacy Pay-to-Public-Key outputs and certain Taproot constructions where public keys are visible on the blockchain.

David Carvalho, CEO of Naoris Protocol and a former ethical hacker, warned that “any Bitcoin in lost wallets, including Satoshi’s (if not alive), will be hacked and returned to circulation” once sufficiently advanced quantum computers are built. He characterized “Q-Day” as likely occurring within three to five years, highlighting the risk that these coins are up for grabs when powerful quantum technology arrives.

Major financial institutions are acknowledging these threats. BlackRock has noted quantum risks in its iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF prospectus, while Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has expressed concerns about inactive wallets' exposure to such vulnerabilities.

Although Ardoino reassured that “quantum computing is still very far from any meaningful risk of breaking Bitcoin cryptography,” he acknowledged that as quantum-resistant solutions emerge, active wallet holders will need to upgrade their addresses to enhance security.

Bitcoin’s Price Stability in the Face of Concerns

Despite ongoing discussions regarding quantum security risks, Bitcoin has remained resilient, trading near $97,000. This stability is bolstered by renewed inflows into ETFs and broader optimism in the macroeconomic landscape.

Bitcoin Quantum Computing - Bitcoin Price Chart

Timot Lamarre, Director of Market Research at Unchained, a financial services firm managing over $10 billion in Bitcoin, noted that the behavior of ETF holders will be key to determining whether the current rally will endure despite increasing technical scrutiny.

“The market value to realized value (MVRV) for Bitcoin ETF holders has remained strong above 1.0. Should it fall below 1.0, we could see some investors withdrawing,” Lamarre said.

He pointed out that ETF holders have demonstrated resilience through 2024, even during adverse market conditions, and suggested that interest rates are likely to decrease, benefiting Bitcoin, especially as over $9 trillion in pandemic-related debt is scheduled for renewal in 2026, with the projected interest expense exceeding $1 trillion.

Wood’s return to investing in gold signifies his belief that as debates over quantum computing continue, there is a favorable environment for traditional precious metals, which serve as a “historically tested hedge in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical climate.”