Regarding the issue of BTC's resistance to quantum computing, some have focused on algorithmic problems or FUD. In fact, algorithms have never been the core issue, technical solutions are not the problem, it has never been a FUD issue, nor is it a matter of the emperor not being in a hurry or the eunuchs being in a hurry. There is only one question: How to deal with the issue of exposing public key address funds. Is it frozen/burned? Or does it belong to whoever takes it? This involves the handling of a significant proportion of BTC: approximately 25-33% of BTC (approximately 6-7 million in quantum exposed state, including Satoshi Nakamoto's 1 million, as well as other permanently lost BTC). Freezing or burning would violate the BTC community's longstanding principles of non-interference and immutability. If there is no need to freeze these BTC, whoever takes them will be counted. So, 6-7 million BTC will be taken away by someone. If BTC had already risen to $300000 per BTC at that time, this means that the total value of this part would be between $1.8 trillion and $2.1 trillion. It's hard to imagine what the final market will look like with such a massive influx of BTC into the market? The biggest challenge in BTC's quantum defense path now is not the technology, but the governance dilemma: how to achieve community consensus. Actually, there is a suggestion: Exposed public key address tokens can be included in future mining security budgets. When the mining is finished in the future, these can be used as subsidies for safety budgets. Simultaneously tackle the two major challenges of BTC: quantum computing and security budget. Kill two birds with one stone. Of course, it is highly unlikely to be adopted by the BTC community and will face fierce opposition from non interventionists.