Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.
Quantum computing is often framed as a distant storm on the horizon, and not yet relevant to today’s cryptographic systems. In 2026, that framing is dangerously misguided. The Ethereum Foundation’s recent decision to launch a dedicated Post-Quantum (PQ) cryptography team, backed by $2 million in funding, is a watershed moment for the industry. The world’s most influential smart contract ecosystem is no longer treating quantum risk as theoretical; it is acting on the correct assumption that cryptographic disruption could arrive far sooner than expected.
Summary
- Quantum risk is no longer theoretical: The Ethereum Foundation’s post-quantum team signals that cryptographic disruption is being treated as an imminent infrastructure threat, not a distant possibility.
- Harvest-now, decrypt-later is the real danger: Millions of exposed public keys could be drained overnight once quantum capability crosses the threshold — no gradual warning, just systemic shock.
- Migration won’t be seamless: Upgrading trillion-dollar blockchains to post-quantum cryptography could require massive downtime, creating ripple effects across ETFs, custody, banking, and global markets.
The quantum threat is already a present market risk, not a future technical problem, and crypto’s failure to treat it as such will define the next systemic crisis. Some readers may find this view overly alarmist or argue that highlighting quantum risk could undermine confidence in digital assets. Others may object that this perspective challenges long-held assumptions about Bitcoin’s resilience and the pace of technological change. However, these contentions radically underestimate how close we are to a cryptographic collapse.
From theory to strategic priority
It’s important to note that quantum computing is no longer confined to academic research. Nation-states, defense agencies, and major technology companies are racing to build machines capable of solving problems classical computers can’t. The risk is not merely computational speed but the potential collapse of cryptographic trust itself.
This urgency is now reflected in some landmark policy developments. The European Commission and EU Member States recently released a coordinated roadmap to transition the bloc’s digital infrastructure to post-quantum cryptography. It stipulates that by 2026, all Member States must begin national PQC strategies; by 2030, critical infrastructure must adopt quantum-resistant encryption; and by 2035, the transition should be completed across all feasible systems.
The Ethereum Foundation’s decision to allocate funding and talent toward post-quantum research mirrors this new reality.
The dangerous comfort of long timelines
Despite these developments, some industry voices continue to downplay the risk. Bitcoin (BTC) pioneer Adam Back has argued that Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for 20 to 40 years. This position rests on the assumption that danger only begins when a quantum computer can break cryptographic keys in real time.
The threat does not start when quantum machines arrive at full strength; it starts when attackers can harvest public keys today and wait. Deloitte recently reported that roughly four million Bitcoin, around 25% of all usable supply, sit in addresses that expose public keys vulnerable to quantum attacks. Once a sufficiently advanced quantum computer exists, those wallets could be drained almost instantly using Shor’s algorithm.
The damage would not unfold gradually. It would be sudden, asymmetric, and irreversible.
Why upgrading is not a simple fix
Supporters of the long-horizon view argue that Bitcoin and other blockchains can simply adopt the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s post-quantum cryptography standards when the time comes. But cryptographic migration is a protocol-level transformation, not a routine patch.
Researchers estimate that upgrading Bitcoin to a quantum-resistant cryptosystem could require up to 75 days of downtime, or over 300 days if the network must operate at reduced capacity to limit attack vectors during migration. For a trillion-dollar asset class, such a disruption would ripple through exchanges, derivatives markets, ETFs, institutional custody systems, and payment rails. This is a risk the market is not currently pricing in.
Blockchains are not alone in this exposure, as the global banking and payments infrastructure relies on the same cryptographic standards now considered vulnerable. A quantum breach would compromise not just assets, but identity systems, digital signatures, interbank settlements, and automated clearing mechanisms.
In practical terms, this could mean frozen payment rails, invalidated digital contracts, and emergency shutdowns of financial networks. The shock would move beyond crypto into equity markets, foreign exchange, and sovereign debt, creating a systemic crisis rooted in broken trust.
When AI and quantum outpace governance
This risk is amplified by the ongoing proliferation of AI, which is accelerating discovery, automation, and exploitation. When paired with quantum computing, it creates a scenario in which machine-scale attacks outpace human governance and regulatory response. Laws move in years. Algorithms move in milliseconds, and the gap is widening continuously. Decentralized systems were designed to remove single points of failure, yet cryptographic fragility threatens to reintroduce them at the foundation layer.
If cryptographic assumptions change, valuations will follow, and capital will increasingly favor quantum-resilient infrastructure. Risk premiums on legacy chains will widen, and regulators will increasingly demand transparency around cryptographic readiness, and institutional investors will expect quantum-risk disclosures. The Ethereum Foundation’s decision is an early signal that the markets will not ignore for long.
