Forbes: Does Quantum Technology Threaten the Encryption Industry? But It’s More Likely an Opportunity

Original title: Quantum Advances Are An Opportunity For Crypto

Original author: Sean Stein Smith, Forbes

Original translation: Saoirse, Foresight News

Right now, the crypto industry is already struggling to keep up with ongoing controversies, geopolitical conflicts, and financial turbulence. And Google’s latest research brings new challenges to this space: the implementation timeline for practical quantum computing has been getting pushed forward.

For years, the potential threats posed by quantum computing have been discussed, debated, and studied in industry articles, and blockchain developers have long begun working on post-quantum cryptography. But what truly is shaking up investment markets is the pace of technological iteration. Google’s Quantum AI team notes that a quantum computer with fewer than 500k qubits could crack the elliptic curve encryption algorithm used by Bitcoin—an encryption method that has long been widely regarded as the most secure. Leaving aside the technical parameters of qubits, the key point is: the latest estimates call for far fewer qubits than previously expected, and this also brings forward the “make-or-break” moment that the blockchain ecosystem may face to 2029.

In addition to the possibility that Bitcoin could expose a security vulnerability in as little as 9 minutes, another report also focuses on the risks facing Ethereum: the network has as many as 5 potential attack vectors, and once exploited, could put DeFi and tokenized assets worth about $100 billion at risk.

Need to be clear: the quantum computers mentioned in these research reports have not truly arrived yet and still remain theoretical. But the ongoing discussion has already driven double-digit gains for tokens and protocols that have post-quantum characteristics. Moreover, tokens viewed as “quantum-adaptable,” along with more advanced protocols such as zero-knowledge proofs, are also benefiting from this wave of attention.

Putting aside speculative sentiment and panic-driven rallies, as quantum technology continues to penetrate more broadly into financial markets, investors should recognize a few key lessons and takeaways.

Quantum risk is no longer confined to theory—this is actually a good thing

Discussions around quantum computing and cryptocurrencies have shifted from abstract risks to tangible, quantifiable threats.

New research shows that quantum systems may only need between 10k and 26k qubits to break the widely used encryption standards today—down significantly from the previously estimated level of the millions. More importantly, the attack scenarios are no longer hypothetical. Researchers have outlined some attack methods that could extract private keys from transactions that are currently underway within minutes, and even transfer funds before the transaction is confirmed.

This reality forces investors, auditing firms, and policymakers to redefine what the problem really is: risk is no longer only about whether “quantum computing will not appear,” but whether existing systems can migrate quickly enough to post-quantum cryptography. Some estimates suggest that “quantum nodes” could arrive as early as 2029, leaving the industry a time window to respond that is already shorter than the upgrade cycles of most financial infrastructure.

From a real-world perspective, the market is facing a classic accounting and valuation dilemma: the need to recognize and evaluate potential losses before they can turn contingent liabilities into actual losses.

The market is pricing the quantum transition in advance

Even though the underlying threats are only gradually becoming visible, market behavior shows that participants are not waiting for the situation to become clear. Tokens and projects built around anti-quantum features are nearing gains of 50%, meaning that capital is being deployed early to build defensive infrastructure and related initiatives.

This is a common pattern in financial markets: investors often price structural risks into assets before those risks truly materialize. In the current context, that means capital will flow toward anti-quantum cryptography technologies, blockchain protocols that complete upgrades, and participants in this area focused on security buildout.

Meanwhile, despite increasingly clear warnings, mainstream crypto asset prices are still holding relatively stable. This reflects that the market is forming a consensus: this change will be carried out through upgrades at the protocol level, rather than the industry collapsing.

For professionals in accounting and auditing, this introduces a new dimension to valuation analysis. Digital assets not only have to deal with market volatility and changes in regulation, but also carry the risk of technological obsolescence—such risks must be disclosed, modeled, and stress-tested.

The crypto industry is unlikely to disappear, but the underlying architecture must be rebuilt

Despite the growing urgency of the warnings, the overall conclusions of various research and industry commentary are clear: quantum computing will not overthrow blockchain, but will force it to rebuild its security system. Recent analyses have pointed to multiple attack paths, including both rapid exploitation of vulnerabilities at the transaction layer and slow attacks targeting dormant wallets where keys have already been exposed.

At the same time, ongoing research in the post-quantum cryptography field indicates that workable response solutions already exist—only the level of widespread adoption remains uneven.

Most importantly, any observer, investor, or policy advocate can show that: blockchain systems are not static. Protocol upgrades, hard forks, and encryption algorithm migrations have long been part of how the ecosystem operates. Compared with traditional financial infrastructure, this adaptability is itself a structural advantage.

Quantum computing brings not a fatal flaw, but a forced opportunity to move forward. The ultimate winners will not be those trying to dodge risk, but the participants who drive the transition to fruition and embed anti-quantum capabilities into governance, information disclosure, and technical design before the threat fully emerges.

Original link