Jefferies ‘Greed & Concern’ Strategist Drops Bitcoin on Quantum Risk
Investment bank Jefferies’ longtime “Greed & Fear” strategist Christopher Wood has reportedly eliminated Bitcoin from his flagship model portfolio, citing mounting concerns that advances in quantum computing may undermine the cryptocurrency’s long-term security.
According to a report by Bloomberg, Wood said in the latest edition of his Greed & Fear newsletter, that the 10% Bitcoin (BTC) allocation he first added in late 2020 has been replaced by a split position in physical gold and gold mining stocks.
He argued that quantum breakthroughs would weaken Bitcoin’s claim to be a dependable store of value for pension‑style investors.
Wood added that concern over quantum risk is rising among long-term, institutional investors, warning that some capital allocators now question Bitcoin’s store of value case if quantum timelines compress.
He said he feared that “cryptographically relevant” machines arriving sooner than expected could let attackers derive private keys from exposed public keys, weakening the cryptography underpinning Bitcoin balances and mining rewards and, in the extreme, challenging its role as “digital gold” for pension‑style portfolios.
Quantum risk enters mainstream portfolios
The quantum issue has been discussed for years among developers and commentators, but Wood’s move shows how it’s now influencing mainstream asset allocation decisions at major brokerage and research houses.
Related: Ethereum must pass ‘walkaway test’ to endure for 100 years: Buterin
Castle Island Ventures partner and Bitcoin advocate Nic Carter has discussed the quantum issue at length, warning in December that “capital is concerned and looking for a solution” on quantum risk, even though many developers, including Blockstream CEO Adam Back, remain skeptical that it is a near‑term problem.
Macro analyst Luke Gromen has also turned cautious on Bitcoin in recent months, citing macro and technological uncertainties, including quantum computing risk, as reasons to favor increasing gold exposure versus BTC on a multi‑cycle view.
Studies from firms such as EY and PwC similarly flag quantum computing as a significant emerging threat to traditional public key cryptography, warning that financial systems, including those supporting digital assets, need to prepare migration paths to quantum-resistant alternatives.
Magazine: Kevin O’Leary says quantum attacking Bitcoin would be a waste of time
Developers say Bitcoin has time to adapt
Bitcoin developers and core infrastructure builders push back on the idea that quantum progress is an immediate threat.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back has repeatedly argued that breaking Bitcoin’s current signature schemes is likely 20–40 years away and that the network would have ample time to migrate to post‑quantum signature algorithms and better key management practices well before any real‑world break becomes feasible.
Other analysts, including an a16z researcher, similarly conclude that the probability of a “cryptographically relevant” quantum computer capable of breaking today’s public key systems emerging this decade is low.
They say that the bigger near‑term risks come from implementation bugs, governance, and “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks on encrypted data rather than immediate attacks on live blockchain signatures.
