One of Bitcoin’s most visible institutional supporters is walking away from the asset, citing rising concerns over its long-term security in a world edging closer to quantum computing.
Key Takeaways
- Christopher Wood of Jefferies has removed a 10 percent Bitcoin allocation from his flagship portfolio, citing growing quantum computing threats.
- The removed allocation has been rebalanced equally into physical gold and gold-mining stocks.
- Wood says the store-of-value thesis for Bitcoin is under pressure, especially for long-term pension portfolios.
- In contrast, Cathie Wood of Ark Invest reaffirmed Bitcoin’s strengths over gold, pointing to its fixed supply and rising demand.
What Happened?
Jefferies’ global head of equity strategy, Christopher Wood, has fully exited his portfolio’s 10 percent allocation to Bitcoin. The decision was driven by theoretical but increasingly serious concerns around quantum computing’s potential to crack Bitcoin’s cryptographic protections. The position was redistributed into gold-related assets instead.
NEW: Jefferies’ Global Head of Equity Strategy Christopher Wood removes Bitcoin from his model portfolio over quantum computing fears 🤔 pic.twitter.com/7wR20p3AtC
— Bitcoin News (@BitcoinNewsCom) January 16, 2026
Jefferies Ditches Bitcoin Over Quantum Risks
Christopher Wood made the announcement in his closely watched “Greed & Fear” investor note. He emphasized that while quantum threats are not immediate, they are enough to challenge Bitcoin’s long-term appeal as a store of value, especially for pension-oriented portfolios.
According to a study cited by Wood from Chaincode Labs, anywhere from 4 to 10 million BTC, or up to 50 percent of circulating supply, may be vulnerable to quantum key extraction. These include funds in reused wallets, such as those held by exchanges and institutional platforms.
Wood clarified:
He originally added Bitcoin to the model portfolio during the pandemic in 2020, highlighting its similarities to gold amid government stimulus. Now, however, Wood is pivoting back to traditional hard assets, splitting the previous Bitcoin stake into 5 percent physical gold and 5 percent gold-mining stocks.
Bitcoin Developers Say the Threat Is Still Distant
Despite Wood’s move, many in the Bitcoin community argue that the threat from quantum computing is still far off. Longtime developer Jameson Lopp stated in December that any serious impact from quantum technology would take at least 5 to 10 years to materialize. He also said the network could adapt through protocol upgrades and migration strategies.
Other experts, such as Blockstream co-founder Adam Back, believe that systems capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography are 20 to 40 years away. However, others like Nic Carter of Castle Island Ventures have criticized developers for not taking the risks seriously enough.
Cathie Wood Reaffirms Faith in Bitcoin
Offering a contrasting view, Cathie Wood of Ark Invest recently spoke in defense of Bitcoin’s role as a scarce, inelastic digital asset. She noted that while Bitcoin fell 6 percent in 2025, it had still surged 360 percent since October 2022, outperforming gold’s 166 percent rise over the same period.
Wood emphasized that Bitcoin’s fixed supply, growing demand, and low correlation with traditional assets make it a compelling portfolio addition. She argued that as global wealth grows, Bitcoin’s price may rise more rapidly than gold, whose supply can still be increased by miners.
She also pointed out that the ratio of Bitcoin to gold dropped to zero for the first time since mid-2022, suggesting a strong potential for diversification benefits.
CoinLaw’s Takeaway
I found this development fascinating because it shows how even theoretical threats like quantum computing are now influencing real portfolio decisions. In my experience, institutional investors tend to be cautious and forward-looking, so when someone like Christopher Wood makes a move, it sends ripples across the market. At the same time, I think Cathie Wood’s viewpoint holds weight. Bitcoin’s codebase has proven adaptable, and its scarcity gives it a unique edge. While the quantum risk is worth watching, it doesn’t seem urgent enough to warrant panic. This might be more about long-term positioning than any immediate danger.
