Jefferies global equity strategist Chris Wood has removed Bitcoin from his long-term model portfolio, citing quantum computing as a risk that undermines Bitcoin's store-of-value proposition for pension-style allocations. The move was highlighted by VanEck head of research Matthew Sigel on X, who called it a notable "downgrade" from one of Wall Street's most followed strategists.
Wood explained his decision in a note dated January 15, 2026, stating that while he doesn't expect an imminent price shock, the quantum issue affects the long-duration mandate. "While GREED & fear does not believe that the quantum issue is about to hit the Bitcoin price dramatically in the near term, the store of value concept is clearly on less solid foundation from the standpoint of a long-term pension portfolio," Wood wrote. He removed the 10% Bitcoin allocation, reallocating 5% to gold and 5% to gold-mining stocks.
The strategist emphasized this was risk management rather than performance critique, noting Bitcoin had risen 325% since his model first added it in December 2020, outperforming gold's 145% gain over the same period. Wood described how quantum discussions have moved from abstract theory to something asset allocators must consider, referencing rising concern that cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) could arrive "a few years away rather than a decade or more."
Wood's core concern centers on Bitcoin's security model. He explained that what's computationally infeasible today could become tractable under CRQCs, potentially reducing the time to derive private keys from public keys from effectively impossible to "mere hours or days." He noted the industry is debating responses, including whether to "burn" quantum-vulnerable coins or accept that vulnerable coins could be stolen, presenting this as a conflict between preserving Bitcoin's property-rights ethos and avoiding confiscatory policies.
Parallel analysis from crypto market analyst Jamie Coutts of Real Vision reinforces these concerns, warning that Bitcoin's celebrated decentralization could become a liability against quantum threats. Coutts notes that while centralized institutions like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and central banks are investing billions in quantum-resistant cryptography, Bitcoin's consensus-driven upgrade process is inherently slower. Historic upgrades like SegWit or Taproot took years of debate, and implementing quantum-resistant algorithms would require near-universal agreement across a global network.
VanEck's Sigel offered a contrasting perspective, emphasizing process differences between systems. "Banks upgrade top-down; BTC requires years of consensus," Sigel wrote. "Banks have an 'undo' button; BTC is finality-first." Sigel revealed he has "added quantum exposure" to VanEck's Onchain Economy ETF (NODE) and made small hedges, preferring diversified AI miners over leveraged BTC products while maintaining spot BTC ETF as his largest holding. He framed the quantum issue as "solvable" and akin to a "wall of worry like blocksize wars."
The broader financial landscape shows increasing attention to quantum risks. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is standardizing post-quantum cryptography, while the World Economic Forum highlighted quantum computing as a top-five global risk to financial stability. Major Bitcoin ETF issuers BlackRock and Fidelity include technological obsolescence from quantum advances as a standard risk factor in their filings.
At press time, Bitcoin traded at $90,941.
