Bitcoin’s recent price decline has reignited the debate about quantum computing, with one prominent investor claiming that Bitcoin is already shaping market behavior and on-chain analysts saying the real driver is more old-fashioned selling pressure.
Gold and silver continued to rise on Thursday, with gold rising 1.7% to an all-time high of $4,930 an ounce and silver rising 3.7% to $96 an ounce, while Bitcoin fell to just over $89,000, about 30% below its early October high.
Since shortly after Trump won the November 2024 presidential election, Bitcoin is down 2.6%, while silver is up 205%, gold 83%, Nasdaq 24%, and the S&P 500 17.6%.
Nick Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, kicked off the latest round of chats by saying Bitcoin’s “mysterious” downturn is “quantum driven” and that it’s “the only story that matters this year.”
Bitcoin’s “mysterious” (quantum) performance decline is the only topic that matters this year. The market is talking, but developers aren’t listening https://t.co/C30BO5Tj4A
— Nick Carter (@nic_carter) January 21, 2026
Others were not convinced. Checkonchain’s on-chain analyst @_Checkmatey_ argued that blaming sideways price movements on quantum anxiety is like blaming “market manipulation for red candlesticks” or exchange balances for appreciation. In his view, the market is driven by supply and positioning, not SF risk.
“There is a bid for gold because sovereigns are buying gold instead of government bonds,” he said. “This trend has been going on since 2008 and will accelerate further after February 22nd. In 2025, Bitcoin would have seen a sell-off from HODLers, which would have killed the previous bulls for the third time and then another.”
Prominent Bitcoin investor and author Vijay Boyapati echoed this idea, saying, “The only real explanation is that once we reach the magic number of large numbers of whales (100,000), a huge supply will be released.”
I agree that QC is a legitimate concern and appreciate your efforts on this (and don’t question your motives like others have done), but I think the price stall invites a story to fill in the blanks in the explanation, when the real explanation is actually just unlocking…
— Vijay Boyapati (@real_vijay) January 21, 2026
Quantum computing has long been discussed as a theoretical risk to Bitcoin’s cryptographic infrastructure.
A sophisticated machine running an algorithm like Shor could, in principle, break the elliptic curve cryptography used to protect wallets. However, most developers claim that it will still be several decades before such machines become practical.
This view remains dominant among the Bitcoin technical community. Blockstream co-founder Adam Back said this threat is extremely remote and the worst-case scenario would not result in an immediate or network-wide loss of funds. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360, which introduces a quantum-resistant address format, already outlines a step-by-step migration path should the need arise.
Still, the topic is gaining renewed attention after some traditional finance players voiced concerns.
Earlier this month, Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood removed Bitcoin from his model portfolio, citing quantum computing as a long-term risk factor.
As CoinDesk previously reported, the real question is not whether Bitcoin can adapt to a quantum future, but rather how long it will take if such an upgrade is needed. Because its timeline is measured in years rather than market cycles, it is unlikely to explain short-term price movements.
