Bitcoin’s current bear market could get even worse next year if the flagship digital asset fails to address concerns about quantum computing.
Caprior founder Charles Edwards argued in a Feb. 20 report that Bitcoin’s market value should already be discounted to account for quantum risk, and warned that the discount could deepen quickly if the network does not transition to quantum-proof code.
According to him:
“Without progress in the upgrade to quantum-proof Bitcoin, Bitcoin’s value will be halved in just over a year. Without progress, Bitcoin’s quantum discount rate will jump to 75% in 2029.”
This prediction suggests that the price of Bitcoin could fall from its current level of $68,000 to around $30,000 by next year.
However, he warned that if the network fails to cope with the threat of quantum computing, the situation could get even worse, with Bitcoin’s value potentially dropping to zero after Q-Day.
Despite these concerns, Edwards argues that Bitcoin’s current price is undervalued by about 30%, as its current fair valuation is around $120,000, which drops to $96,000 when quantum risk is factored in.
He wrote:
“In other words, if you are a long-term Bitcoin investor and are optimistic that we can solve the quantum threat over the next two to three years, then a price in the $60,000 range could represent an attractive long-term investment opportunity.”
The essential point is not that a quantum attack is imminent. Edwards’ framework is that if investors believe that the network’s governance and transition process will take years, the market could start lowering the price of Bitcoin before a “Q-Day” event.
In his model, the risk is a discount to valuation because Bitcoin upgrades are slow and require extensive coordination across developers, nodes, miners, exchanges, and wallet users.
Why markets can downplay future threats today
Edwards’ memo argues that quantum risk has moved from a fringe topic to a timeline issue.
He cites approximately 2,300 logical qubits as a threshold sufficient to threaten Bitcoin’s current cryptography, and estimates that a cryptographically relevant quantum event is likely to occur by 2030 and increasing likelihood by 2031, based on compiled industry forecasts.
According to him:
“Bitcoin Q-Day is likely to happen by 2030 (60% chance) and probably by 2031 (80% chance).”
But his more immediate concern is Bitcoin’s response time.
Even in an aggressive scenario, Edwards estimates that it will take roughly two years, and possibly one to three years, to migrate the majority of active users to quantum-resistant wallets and code.
The gap between the pace of quantum progress and the pace of Bitcoin governance is the basis for his “discount factor” argument.
On the other hand, this logic is no longer limited to crypto-native commentary.
Last year, BlackRock amended the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF’s prospectus to explicitly warn that advances in quantum computing could invalidate Bitcoin’s cryptographic technology.
According to the company, this could compromise the security of the wallet and force network-wide changes that could require widespread consensus and one or more forks. The filing also states that there is no guarantee that these transitions will be implemented successfully or on time.
For the market, this is important because it reframes quantum computing as a coordination and governance risk rather than just a hardware risk.
Even if the technology arrives later than feared, uncertainty around readiness could still weigh on valuations in the meantime.
What is at stake and why is it difficult to discuss?
Edwards divides Bitcoin’s quantum problem into two parts.
First, it will migrate active users to a quantum-resistant version of Bitcoin. The second is to address older or publicly available coins, which can be vulnerable if a quantum system can recover the private key from the public key.
He estimates that 20% to 30% of Bitcoin’s supply has “public keys exposed,” including older and dormant coins, and warns that in a worst-case scenario, these coins could become a major source of forced supply.
At current prices, that 20% to 30% range represents a great value. Using a Bitcoin supply cap of 21 million and a spot price of around $67,178, the range at risk is approximately $282 billion to $423 billion.
Notably, CoinShares’ February 2026 valuation provides numbers regarding the “long-term exposure” issue.
It is estimated to be concentrated in traditional Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) output, which is equivalent to approximately 1.6 million BTC, or approximately 8% of the supply. This is because the public key is clearly visible in these formats.
But the portion that could cause “substantial market disruption” if stolen immediately is much smaller. CoinShares estimates that there is 10,200 BTC sitting in UTXO, which is large enough to be a problem in a rapid liquidation scenario.
Bitcoin has a proposal, but consensus is the difficult part
To solve the quantum computing threat, Edwards proposes a post-migration “dead man’s switch” concept that can freeze coins that do not move to a quantum-resistant output within a set window.
He argues that this approach better preserves the value of the network, but acknowledges that it is difficult to reach consensus because it goes against Bitcoin’s “not the key, not the coin” culture for users who lose access and cannot migrate.
He says such forced liquidations could undermine confidence in Bitcoin’s “hard money” theory and trigger a severe bear market.
Meanwhile, the Bitcoin community is not standing still and proposals are being advanced to reduce the risk.
The draft proposal, BIP 360, is currently in the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals repository.
It introduces Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR), a proposed soft fork output type designed to mitigate certain long-term quantum risks and pave the way for future post-quantum signature integration.
The draft specifies that this is a first step, noting that protection against faster “short exposure” attacks may still require post-quantum signatures.
Beyond cryptocurrencies, standards bodies are urging institutions to start preparing.
NIST says organizations should begin migrating their systems to quantum-resistant cryptography, reflecting a broader shift to long-term planning rather than a last-minute response.
This supports the idea that the market discussion is moving from “if” to “when and how.”
For Bitcoin investors, questions remain narrower than the headlines suggest. The question is not whether quantum computers can beat today’s Bitcoin.
The question is whether Bitcoin can show enough measurable progress along its upgrade path so that quantum risk is not heavily discounted in an already fragile market.