Lede
Christopher Wood, the longtime “Greed & Fear” strategist at investment bank Jefferies, has reportedly removed Bitcoin entirely from his flagship model portfolio. This shift represents a complete reversal of a position Wood first established in late 2020, which at the time included a 10% allocation to the digital asset. According to recent reports, the strategist has opted to replace this significant Bitcoin holding with a split position consisting of physical gold and gold mining stocks, returning to traditional precious metals as a primary store of value within his model.
The decision to divest from the cryptocurrency was driven by mounting concerns regarding the potential for advancements in quantum computing to undermine the long-term security of the network. Wood indicated that these technological developments pose a fundamental risk to the integrity of the asset. By removing Bitcoin from the portfolio, the Jefferies strategist is signaling a shift in how institutional researchers are weighing the future risks of cryptographic systems against established financial hedges like gold.
Context
The primary rationale for Christopher Wood’s move involves the threat that quantum breakthroughs pose to Bitcoin’s status as a dependable store of value for pension-style investors. Wood has warned that as quantum timelines compress, more capital allocators may begin to question the long-term viability of the asset. The core technical concern is that “cryptographically relevant” machines could allow attackers to derive private keys from exposed public keys, effectively compromising the balances held on the network and the security of mining rewards. This scenario, if realized, would challenge Bitcoin’s reputation as “digital gold.”
Other market participants have expressed similar caution regarding these technological uncertainties. Macro analyst Luke Gromen has also turned cautious on the asset in recent months, citing both macro and technological risks, including the potential for quantum computing to disrupt the current landscape. Gromen has noted that these factors justify a preference for increasing gold exposure relative to Bitcoin on a multi-cycle view, reflecting a growing hesitation among some institutional researchers to fully commit to the asset’s long-term security model.
Impact
The decision by a major institutional strategist to exit Bitcoin over quantum concerns highlights a broadening awareness of cryptographic vulnerabilities within the financial sector. This sentiment is echoed by major professional services firms; studies from EY and PwC have both flagged quantum computing as a significant emerging threat to traditional public key cryptography. These firms emphasize that financial systems, including those utilized for digital assets, must begin to prepare dedicated migration paths toward quantum-resistant alternatives to protect themselves from future breakthroughs.
Advocates within the industry are acknowledging that this concern is impacting investment decisions. Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, has noted that capital is increasingly concerned about quantum risk and is actively looking for solutions. The move by Jefferies shows how theoretical technical discussions are now influencing mainstream asset allocation at major brokerage houses. As institutional investors focus on long-term stability, the pressure for the digital asset ecosystem to address these potential vulnerabilities through technological upgrades and standardized migration plans continues to grow.
Outlook
While some strategists are taking defensive measures, many Bitcoin developers and infrastructure leaders argue that the network has significant time to adapt. Blockstream CEO Adam Back remains skeptical that quantum computing poses a near-term problem, suggesting that the ability to break current signature schemes may be 20 to 40 years away. This timeframe would provide the network with ample opportunity to migrate to post-quantum signature algorithms and implement more robust key management practices before a real-world break becomes feasible.
Furthermore, research suggests that the probability of a quantum computer capable of breaking today’s public key systems emerging within this decade is low. Analysts believe that other risks are more immediate and relevant for the network’s current governance and security, including:
- Implementation bugs and software vulnerabilities.
- Network governance challenges.
- “Harvest now, decrypt later” attacks on existing encrypted data.
Although the threat of quantum computing remains a point of contention for long-term allocators like Christopher Wood, the technical community suggests that the focus remains on standard security protocols and the eventual orderly transition to quantum-resistant cryptography.
About the Author
