On January 25, 2026, a16z Crypto released an assessment report on quantum computing and blockchain security, marking the first systematic judgment on the timeline of quantum threats from the dual perspective of a leading crypto venture capital firm and a technology research institution. The core conclusion of the report does not cater to emotions: the probability of a general-purpose quantum computer (CRQC) with real destructive power emerging before 2030 is assessed as "extremely low," which sharply contrasts with the overwhelming "quantum doomsday" narrative that has prevailed in recent years. At the same time, the report does not take the stance of "quantum is insignificant," but rather points out the dislocation between panic and blind optimism, and the real technological progress and security engineering. The real question is raised: if the threat is not imminent, how should the public chain ecosystem prioritize "quantum security" under limited development, manpower, and governance budgets, without being swept up in panic or ignoring this long-term battle as mere noise?
The Tug-of-War Between Quantum Doomsday Narratives and the Ignorance Camp
● Formation of Polarized Emotions: Over the past few years, one side of the industry has been dominated by the doomsday narrative that "Bitcoin could be wiped out by quantum at any moment," with articles, conferences, and security presentations frequently painting a picture of "waking up one day to find on-chain assets wiped out." On the other side are the optimists who firmly lock quantum in the realm of science fiction, believing that the layered hardware and physical bottlenecks are sufficient to ensure that serious discussions are unnecessary within this century. The long-term confrontation of these two emotions has gradually replaced calm discussions based on engineering and governance realities.
● The Significance of Probability Correction: The intervention of the a16z report at the factual level directly undermines the credibility of the short-term "quantum doomsday theory" with the judgment that "the probability of a CRQC with real destructive power appearing before 2030 is extremely low." The report does not deny that quantum could potentially reshape the cryptographic landscape in the longer term, but rather pulls the threat back to the timeline: it is not likely to "end the world at any moment" in the short term, but it also cannot be completely ignored in the long term. This layered understanding reserves space for the industry to plan and rehearse.
● The Shift in Narrative Incentives: Media needs traffic, security companies need markets, and project teams need new stories. Under this incentive structure, "quantum panic" often favors marketing and financing, while "not so soon" lacks the same communicative tension. Conversely, some projects focused on short-term growth are happy to use "quantum is still far off" to avoid any medium- to long-term security investments; this optimism also serves immediate interests rather than systemic security itself.
● The Report as a Regulator: The value of this round of a16z's report lies in its attempt to pull emotions back into a rational range using time windows and risk layering. On one hand, it positively responds to "quantum is not a fire to be put out today," while on the other hand, it emphasizes "it is a long-term war that needs to be rehearsed starting now," thus providing a more executable dialogue framework for governance participants, rather than just a stance dispute.
From Algorithms to Assets: Who is Exposed to the Quantum Crosshairs First
● HNDL Attacks and Different Primitives: The report mentions HNDL attacks, which essentially refer to the different levels of impact that quantum computing has on existing cryptographic primitives, necessitating a distinction between symmetric encryption, hash functions, digital signatures, and zkSNARKs. Symmetric encryption and hashes are often "only weakened but difficult to be instantly breached," while public keys and verifiable proofs are more sensitive exposure points in quantum scenarios. Who gets hit first and who has a buffer period is a key clarification of this assessment.
● The Principle of Gradual Transition for Signatures and zkSNARKs: a16z clearly states that concerns over HNDL should not lead to a hasty switch to unproven quantum-resistant algorithms for digital signatures and zkSNARKs. The reason is that "replacing foundational components too early to prevent future threats" may sacrifice the security and performance that have already been extensively validated in real-world applications, causing the system to be compromised by real-world implementation vulnerabilities and compatibility issues before quantum actually arrives.
● Inconsistent Time Windows: The report emphasizes that not all cryptographic components will collectively fail at the same moment when quantum hardware breakthroughs occur. Some primitives can be smoothly iterated through regular protocol upgrades and software updates before quantum becomes a real threat; others, due to their deep embedding in consensus, address formats, and application logic, require advance planning for alternative solutions and migration paths. Understanding this temporal misalignment is a prerequisite for constructing migration roadmaps, rather than a one-size-fits-all "replace everything."
● Blind Upgrades are Risks: The notion that "switching to quantum-resistant algorithms will solve everything" is explicitly denied by the report. New algorithms often have insufficient maturity and higher implementation complexity, compounded by increased bandwidth and computational power consumption, which can easily introduce new vulnerabilities in wallet implementations, node validations, and cross-chain protocols. Rashly switching could lead to a drastic deterioration in user experience and expose the system to more real-world attacks due to unstable engineering details, with quantum threats not yet materialized, but security boundaries already regressing.
Bitcoin's Abandoned Addresses and Millions of Quantum Chips
● The Fragile Side of On-Chain Legacy: The report relays that there are a large number of quantum-vulnerable but abandoned or long-unused assets on the Bitcoin chain, most of which are under early address systems and signature habits, forgotten by holders, lost keys, or not moved for various reasons. These assets seem "asleep and harmless" in the current environment, but once quantum computing gains real attack power, they could quickly become focal points of concentrated fire.
● Amplification of Scale: Briefing data indicates that the top 100 listed companies hold a total of 1,127,981 BTC, a volume capable of shaking both on-chain and off-chain financial structures. If the quantum threat materializes, the "forgotten assets" on-chain and the holdings managed by listed companies and institutions off-chain will create interconnected risks: it is not just a matter of UTXOs being cracked, but also the balance sheets, custodial responsibilities, and legal ownership being thrust into the spotlight in a very short time.
● UTXO Model and Early Exposure: Under Bitcoin's UTXO model, the early habit of "single-use addresses" and "publishing public keys before consumption" has led to a significant amount of historical UTXO signature information being exposed on-chain. Once an efficient quantum attack capable of breaking the current signature scheme emerges, these past transaction traces could become entry points for attackers, making historically retained assets more vulnerable, unlike the more cautious address usage patterns of the new generation that have some buffer.
● The Paradox of Protocol Upgrades: The briefing also points out that the coordination difficulty of Bitcoin protocol upgrades may be greater than the quantum threat itself. Any migration involving address formats, signature algorithms, or even consensus rules must reach broad consensus among miners, full nodes, corporate holders, and core developers. In this game, who pays for the historical legacy assets, whether to tolerate rollbacks or forced migrations, will become highly controversial political issues, turning the technical question of "how to defend against quantum" into a deep governance test.
Quantum Migration is Not a One-Click System Reinstallation
● The Chain Reaction of Technical Economics: From the framework provided by the report, algorithm migration is far more than just "switching to a new cryptographic library." Stronger quantum-resistant solutions typically mean increased bandwidth, storage, and verification costs, with full nodes needing to handle larger data packets, and the synchronization experience of light wallets potentially deteriorating significantly, while also triggering systemic overhauls of infrastructures like L2, cross-chain bridges, and custodial wallets. Each underlying change leaves a mark on cost structures and user experiences.
● The Discrepancy Between Brand Marketing and Real Priorities: Currently, mainstream public chains have highly divided attitudes towards quantum threats: some incorporate "quantum resistance" into their websites and white papers as a branding point, yet lack systematic threat modeling and engineering roadmaps; others completely ignore quantum in their roadmaps and governance agendas, viewing it as distant noise. The briefing emphasizes that this misalignment of priorities itself constitutes a risk: either creating a false sense of security or failing to act when preparations are needed.
● Governance Structures Amplifying or Buffering Costs: Considering the upgrade paths of Bitcoin and other public chains, one can see how governance structures can amplify or mitigate migration costs. Highly conservative systems with extremely high consensus thresholds may act slowly on quantum-resistant modifications but have advantages in avoiding hasty decisions; more agile governance public chains can integrate new algorithms and hybrid solutions more quickly but are also more prone to frequently rewriting underlying rules under interest conflicts. Different governance models do not make quantum threats disappear but change the distribution of costs.
● A Phased Strategy Narrative: In this reality, a more pragmatic approach is to advance in phases: first complete system-level threat modeling and candidate solution assessments, clarifying which modules need priority attention; then embed optional quantum-resistant routes and parameter switches during regular protocol upgrade windows, leaving backdoors for the future; rather than launching a hasty "engine swap" across the network at emotionally charged moments. This is also the dialogue approach the report hopes to reshape: shifting from a one-time revolution to a reversible, gradual engineering route.
The Queue Order of Security Budgets: Where Should Quantum Stand
● Placing Quantum in a Broader Security Landscape: When quantum threats are placed back into the entire security landscape, they must be compared with smart contract vulnerabilities, private key management errors, cross-chain bridge attacks, and other real high-frequency risks. The briefing does not shy away from a fact: in recent years, the real causes of losses amounting to billions or more in assets have been contract errors, improper permission designs, and social engineering, rather than any quantum-related events. Quantum is a distant enemy, while the battlefield in front remains fraught with smoke.
● Reordering the Priority Framework: Based on a16z's temporal judgment, a clearer priority framework can be constructed: in the short term, security resources should be directed towards "attacks that have already occurred and are frequently recurring," ensuring the robustness of protocol governance, software engineering processes, and on-chain financial mechanisms; quantum should be viewed as a medium- to long-term planning item, requiring continuous tracking and contingency design, but not crowding out the current survival resources of frontline products and infrastructure.
● The Backlash from Misalignment: If projects overly bet on future quantum threats in their narratives and budgets, they may face the awkward situation of "the helmet isn't ready, but the person has already fallen under current bullets": development teams consume resources on foundational algorithm experiments but invest insufficiently in contract audits, permission governance, and operational security, making the overall system more fragile. Misallocation of security resources not only fails to enhance long-term resilience but also weakens defenses against real-world attacks.
● Actionable Recommendations: For public chain teams and institutional holders, a more realistic direction for action is to establish internal quantum risk working groups and monitoring mechanisms: track relevant research progress, maintain threat assessment documents, participate in standardization discussions, and reserve options for future protocol upgrades, rather than immediately rewriting the entire protocol stack. Incorporating quantum threats into governance and risk control processes, rather than immediately translating them into large-scale engineering actions, may be the posture this report hopes to see.
Rewriting the Narrative of Cryptographic Security Under the Shadow of Quantum
The quantum threat assessment report released by a16z in January 2026 provides a rather restrained correction to the long-amplified narrative in the industry: on one hand, it denies the doomsday rhetoric of "inevitable destruction before 2030," offering an "extremely low probability" judgment; on the other hand, it also opposes treating quantum as a distant noise that can be completely ignored, instead requiring it to be placed within a time-labeled, phased engineering framework. In the coming years, the more realistic main battlefield for the crypto world will still be in protocol governance, software engineering quality, and on-chain financial attack surfaces, while quantum will resemble a long-term war that requires continuous rehearsal and could potentially be staged at any moment.
In this context, it is likely that new layers will emerge within the industry: some high-value infrastructure, custodians, and systemically important projects will take the lead in attempting to introduce quantum-resistant solutions in specific modules, exchanging higher costs for longer-term insurance; more projects will choose to hedge such long-term threats through a combination of insurance, risk control, and triggerable upgrade plans, rather than rewriting everything immediately. The real competition is not about who first places "quantum security" on the homepage, but about who can make more rational and executable security prioritizations on the timeline, finding a compromise path that is neither panicked nor numb between the present and the future.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
