Bitcoin’s Price Drop and Quantum Computing Speculation
The recent decline in Bitcoin’s price has reignited discussions around quantum computing. Some investors suggest that Bitcoin is influencing market trends, while analysts believe traditional selling pressure is the main factor.
On Thursday, gold and silver prices continued their upward trajectory, with gold reaching a record high of $4,930 per ounce, increasing by 1.7%, and silver rising 3.7% to $96 per ounce. In contrast, Bitcoin has dipped to slightly above $89,000, representing a 30% decrease from its early October peak.
Since Donald Trump won the presidential election in November 2024, Bitcoin’s value has dropped by 2.6%, while silver, gold, the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500 have experienced significant gains of 205%, 83%, 24%, and 17.6%, respectively.
Nick Carter from Castle Island Ventures fueled the ongoing conversation, claiming that Bitcoin’s “mysterious” decline is tied to quantum technology, calling it “the only story that matters this year.”
Bitcoin’s “mysterious” (quantum) performance decline is the only topic that matters this year. The market is talking, but developers aren’t listening. https://t.co/C30BO5Tj4A
— Nick Carter (@nic_carter) January 21, 2026
However, not everyone agrees with Carter’s assessment. On-chain analyst @_Checkmatey_ from Checkonchain criticized the idea of blaming price fluctuations on quantum technology. He likened it to attributing market movement to “manipulation for red candlesticks” and suggested that true market influences stem from supply dynamics rather than the risks associated with quantum computing.
He observed, “There is a bid for gold because sovereigns are purchasing it instead of government bonds. This trend has been in motion since 2008 and will likely intensify after February 22nd. By 2025, Bitcoin will likely see another sell-off from long-term holders, potentially impacting bullish trends again.”
Investor and author Vijay Boyapati shared a similar sentiment, arguing that the primary reason for price changes might be the impending release of a significant supply once the number of large Bitcoin holders (or “whales”) reaches 100,000.
I agree that QC is a legitimate concern… but I think the price stall invites a story to fill in the blanks in the explanation, when the real explanation is actually just unlocking…
—Vijay Boyapati (@real_vijay) January 21, 2026
Quantum computing has been long viewed as a theoretical threat to Bitcoin’s cryptographic security. In theory, advanced machines could employ algorithms capable of compromising the elliptic curve cryptography that safeguards wallets. However, many experts contend that practical quantum computers are still a long way off.
This perspective is widely accepted in the Bitcoin development community. Adam Back, a co-founder of Blockstream, stated that the quantum threat remains minimal; even in a worst-case scenario, it wouldn’t lead to immediate, widespread financial loss. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360 addresses potential concerns by proposing a migration strategy to quantum-resistant address formats if necessary.
Yet, interest in the topic is rising, especially after some in traditional finance raised alarms. Recently, Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood decided to exclude Bitcoin from his model portfolio, pointing to quantum computing as a significant long-term risk.
As previously reported, the real concern isn’t whether Bitcoin can adapt to a quantum future but rather how long it would take if such changes become essential. Given that this timeline extends over years rather than market cycles, short-term price fluctuations are unlikely to be influenced by those considerations.
