Lede
The performance of Bitcoin throughout 2025 has sparked a significant debate among industry analysts regarding the primary drivers of its market movement. Glassnode lead analyst James Check recently addressed the growing narrative that links Bitcoin’s price fluctuations to emerging fears surrounding quantum computing. In a public statement, Check suggested that attributing price weakness to quantum concerns is comparable to blaming market manipulation for downward price trends or declining exchange balances for upward movements. This perspective challenges a growing sentiment that technological threats are the foremost concern for investors in the current environment.
The debate comes at a time when Bitcoin has experienced notable volatility and a departure from some of the more aggressive bullish forecasts. According to market data, Bitcoin concluded the year 2025 approximately 6.33% lower than its starting valuation. This decline saw the digital asset transition from an initial price of $93,425 to a closing figure of $87,508. While some market participants remain focused on technological risks, others argue that internal market dynamics, specifically the behavior of long-term investors, played a more substantial role in this downward trajectory.
Current market activity shows that Bitcoin has recently traded flat, maintaining a level of approximately $89,500 over the past day. The divergence in expert opinions highlights a split between those who see structural technological threats and those who view the price action as a result of standard market cycles. Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, represents the more concerned camp, asserting that the underperformance is indeed due to quantum advancements and describing it as the most significant story of the year.
Context
The integration of quantum computing concerns into the broader financial discourse has reached traditional finance institutions, impacting how the asset is viewed by mainstream strategists. Christopher Wood, a strategist at Jefferies, notably removed Bitcoin from his “Greed & Fear” model portfolio last week. This decision was explicitly tied to concerns that advancements in quantum computing could eventually undermine the long-term security of the Bitcoin network. Such moves by institutional strategists suggest that the narrative is moving beyond speculative circles and influencing professional portfolio management and asset allocation strategies.
However, this narrative is not universally accepted within the cryptocurrency community, with several prominent figures questioning the direct link between quantum developments and price action. Vijay Boyapati, a prominent author in the space, has expressed significant skepticism regarding the idea that quantum computing explains recent price action. While acknowledging that some investment notes have adopted this narrative, Boyapati suggests that the actual impact on market prices may be overstated. This skepticism is echoed by those who believe the cryptographic methods securing the blockchain remain robust enough to withstand current technological developments.
Further nuance is provided by Jamie Coutts, the chief crypto researcher at Real Vision, who noted that quantum risk doesn’t move with price, but the gap does. Coutts has observed that as the price of Bitcoin increases, confidence rises, and the willingness to push through disruptive, precautionary upgrades often falls. He noted that the system feels safest exactly when it is least incentivized to prepare, creating a paradox where the network may be least prepared for technological shifts when it is performing at its peak levels of market confidence.
Impact
While the quantum narrative captures headlines, Glassnode’s James Check argues that the actual impact on Bitcoin’s price performance in 2025 was driven more by fundamental supply and demand mechanics. Specifically, Check pointed to heavy selling from long-term holders as the primary catalyst for the asset’s weakness. He noted that the volume of sell-side pressure from these holders was substantial enough that it might have ended previous bull markets several times over. This internal pressure suggests that the market was absorbing significant liquidation from established participants regardless of external technological fears.
The statistical reality of Bitcoin’s performance in 2025 reflects this pressure from long-term holders. The asset began the year at $93,425 and ended it at $87,508, representing a total decrease of roughly 6.33%. This performance stood in contrast to various bullish forecasts that had anticipated significantly higher valuations. The data indicates that despite periods of strength, the sustained selling from long-term holders created a ceiling that prevented the asset from maintaining its earlier momentum, leading to a year-over-year loss that surprised many market observers.
The impact of this selling behavior is often overshadowed by more sensationalist theories regarding quantum computing. By focusing on the tangible actions of market participants, analysts like Check provide an alternative explanation for why the asset underperformed relative to expectations. The “mysterious” underperformance cited by some as a result of quantum threats is viewed by others as a logical outcome of heavy distribution by those who have held the asset for extended periods, seeking to realize gains or adjust their positions in a changing economic landscape.
Outlook
Looking at the trajectory of Bitcoin’s price throughout 2025, the asset reached a significant peak in October, climbing to a value above $126,000. This peak demonstrated the asset’s capacity for growth even amidst conflicting narratives and technological concerns. However, the inability to sustain those levels and the subsequent retreat to $87,508 by the end of the year suggests a market that is still navigating deep-seated volatility and conflicting investor sentiment. The discrepancy between the October highs and the final year-end price remains a point of analysis for those projecting future movements.
The immediate outlook shows Bitcoin trading in a consolidated range, recently hovering around the $89,500 mark. This flat trading pattern reflects a period of stabilization as the market weighs the competing theories of long-term holder distribution versus the perceived threat of quantum computing. The debate between figures like Nic Carter, who views quantum as the primary story of the year, and skeptics like Vijay Boyapati will likely continue to influence how both retail and institutional investors approach the asset in the coming months.
As the market moves forward, the focus may shift toward how developers respond to these perceived risks. If the narrative regarding quantum vulnerability persists, there may be increased pressure for upgrades to the network’s cryptographic security. Conversely, if the price action continues to be dominated by the selling patterns of long-term holders, the technological debate may take a backseat to more traditional market analysis focusing on liquidity, holder behavior, and broader macroeconomic factors that influence digital asset valuations.
About the Author
