SKN | Jefferies’ ‘Greed & Fear’ Strategist Cuts Bitcoin Allocation to Zero on Quantum Risk

Bitcoin has lost a high-profile institutional supporter, at least within one of Wall Street’s most closely followed model portfolios. Christopher Wood, Jefferies’ longtime “Greed & Fear” strategist, has cut Bitcoin exposure to zero, citing growing concerns that advances in quantum computing could eventually undermine the cryptocurrency’s long-term security and its role as a store of value.

According to a report by Bloomberg, Wood removed the 10% bitcoin allocation he first introduced in late 2020 from his flagship portfolio. In its place, he added a split allocation to physical gold and gold mining equities, signaling a decisive shift back toward traditional inflation hedges as technological risks move higher on his radar.

Why quantum computing changed the calculus

Wood argued that the accelerating pace of quantum research weakens Bitcoin’s appeal for pension-style and long-horizon investors. His concern centers on the possibility that “cryptographically relevant” quantum computers could arrive sooner than previously expected, potentially allowing attackers to derive private keys from exposed public keys.

Such a development, in Wood’s view, would threaten the cryptographic foundations that secure bitcoin balances and mining rewards. In an extreme scenario, it could challenge Bitcoin’s narrative as “digital gold,” particularly for institutions whose mandates prioritize capital preservation over asymmetric upside.

The strategist said apprehension around quantum risk is no longer theoretical among some asset allocators. Instead, it is beginning to factor into portfolio construction decisions, especially as timelines for meaningful quantum breakthroughs appear less distant than they once did.

Quantum risk enters mainstream asset allocation

While quantum computing has long been discussed within crypto developer circles, Wood’s move highlights how the debate is spilling into mainstream finance. A strategist at a major investment bank removing bitcoin entirely from a model portfolio marks a notable shift from earlier years, when concerns around regulation or volatility dominated institutional skepticism.

Other market observers have echoed similar caution. Macro analyst Luke Gromen has recently favored gold over bitcoin on a multi-cycle view, citing a combination of macro uncertainty and emerging technological risks, including quantum computing. Large professional services firms such as EY and PwC have also flagged quantum computing as a long-term threat to existing public-key cryptography, urging financial systems to plan for post-quantum transitions.

Bitcoin developers push back

Bitcoin developers and infrastructure builders dispute the idea that quantum computing poses an imminent danger. Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, has repeatedly argued that breaking Bitcoin’s current signature schemes is likely decades away, estimating a 20–40 year horizon.

According to this view, the Bitcoin network would have ample time to migrate to post-quantum signature algorithms and improve key management practices well before any practical attack becomes feasible. Researchers affiliated with Andreessen Horowitz have reached similar conclusions, suggesting the probability of a quantum computer capable of breaking modern public-key cryptography emerging this decade remains low.

They also note that more immediate risks lie elsewhere, including software vulnerabilities, governance challenges, and so-called “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks targeting encrypted data rather than live blockchain signatures.

A signal worth watching

Wood’s decision does not imply that quantum risk is an imminent existential threat to Bitcoin. However, it underscores how narratives around technological security can influence capital flows just as much as regulation or macroeconomics. As quantum computing moves from abstract theory toward applied research, its perceived impact on digital assets may increasingly shape institutional behavior.

Whether Bitcoin adapts smoothly to post-quantum cryptography or faces renewed skepticism from conservative allocators will likely become a defining debate in the years ahead, especially as the line between speculative innovation and pension-grade infrastructure continues to blur.