The consensus that Bitcoin has matured into “digital gold” faces a brand new fracture line on Wall Avenue, one which has little to do with each day value volatility and the whole lot to do with the distant way forward for computing.
Two distinguished strategists named Wooden are at present providing diametrically opposed roadmaps to international allocators for the world’s largest crypto asset.
On Jan. 16, Christopher Wooden of Jefferies eradicated his agency’s long-standing Bitcoin publicity, citing the existential risk posed by quantum computing.
Then again, Cathie Wooden of ARK Make investments is urging buyers to look previous technical anxieties and concentrate on the asset’s distinct lack of correlation with conventional markets.
This divergence highlights a crucial evolution in how institutional capital is underwriting crypto property in 2026. The controversy is not merely about whether or not Bitcoin is a speculative token or a retailer of worth.
It has shifted towards a extra advanced calculation concerning survivability, governance, and the precise kind of hedge buyers consider they’re shopping for.
The quantum exit
Christopher Wooden, the worldwide head of fairness technique at Jefferies, constructed a fame for navigating market sentiment together with his “Greed & Concern” publication.
His newest transfer cuts towards the grain of two years of institutional accumulation by eradicating a ten% Bitcoin allocation from his mannequin portfolio completely.
Within the reallocation, Jefferies shifted the ten% Bitcoin sleeve into property with older narratives: 5% into bodily gold and 5% into gold-mining shares.
The rationale is rooted in tail danger relatively than quick market dynamics. Wooden argued that advances in quantum computing may ultimately undermine the cryptography that secures the Bitcoin community.
Whereas most buyers nonetheless file quantum threats below “science initiatives,” Jefferies is treating the chance as a disqualifying issue for pension-style, long-horizon capital.
This anxiousness is discovering validation amongst technical consultants who argue the timeline for a risk is compressing quicker than markets understand.
Charles Edwards, founding father of Capriole, argued {that a} quantum pc may break Bitcoin in simply 2 to 9 years with out an improve, with a excessive chance within the 4- to 5-year vary.
Edwards describes the market as having entered a “Quantum Occasion Horizon,” a crucial threshold at which the frontier danger of a hack is roughly equal to the time required to succeed in improve consensus and execute a rollout.
Within the Jefferies framing, the uncomfortable actuality is {that a} quantum pc will sometime have the ability to crack Bitcoin as a result of its safety assumptions relaxation on cryptographic primitives which might be susceptible to these highly effective future machines.
The precise risk includes adversaries “harvesting” uncovered public keys now to retailer them and decrypt the personal keys later when {hardware} matures.
Estimates counsel greater than 4 million BTC are held in susceptible addresses because of reuse or older codecs. This leaves a “harvest now, decrypt later” assault vector that might compromise a large share of the full provide.
Quantum computing isn’t a direct Bitcoin risk
Grayscale, one of many largest digital-asset managers, has sought to floor the 2026 market dialog by labeling quantum vulnerability a “purple herring” for this yr.
Its evaluation means that, whereas the risk is actual, it’s unlikely to drive costs within the close to time period.
Contemplating this, Grayscale argued that within the longer run, most blockchains and far of the broader economic system will want post-quantum upgrades anyway.
This view aligns with developments inside the crypto sector.
Andre Dragosch, Bitwise Europe’s Head of Analysis, has additionally countered the “quick doom” narrative by emphasizing the sheer computational gulf between present expertise and a viable assault.
Whereas Dragosch validated issues about older wallets, he argues that the community itself stays terribly sturdy.
He wrote:
“Bitcoin now runs at 1 zeta hash per second, equal to multiple million El Capitan-class supercomputers. That’s orders of magnitude past the attain of right this moment’s quantum machines – and even past these anticipated within the foreseeable future.”
The case for Bitcoin
Contemplating the above, ARK Make investments is doubling down on the argument that Bitcoin belongs in fashionable portfolios exactly as a result of it behaves not like anything.
In a 2026 outlook word, ARK’s Cathie Wooden leaned on correlations relatively than ideology.
Her argument is medical: Bitcoin’s return stream has remained weakly linked to main asset courses since 2020, due to this fact providing a manner to enhance portfolio effectivity.
ARK supported this view with a correlation matrix utilizing weekly returns from January 2020 by means of January 2026. The information exhibits Bitcoin’s correlation with gold at 0.14 and with bonds at 0.06.
Maybe most strikingly, the desk exhibits that the S&P 500’s correlation with bonds is greater than Bitcoin’s correlation with gold.
Wooden makes use of this information to argue that Bitcoin must be considered as a useful diversifier for asset allocators looking for greater returns per unit of danger within the years forward.
This represents a delicate however essential shift in messaging. ARK is reframing Bitcoin from “a more moderen model of gold” into “an uncorrelated return stream with uneven upside.”
Redefining the hedge
For buyers watching the break up between two of the market’s high-profile strategists, the quick takeaway isn’t that Bitcoin is damaged. It’s that the institutional narrative is maturing into one thing extra demanding.
Jefferies is successfully saying {that a} hedge that may require a contentious protocol-level migration isn’t the identical as bodily gold, even when each property can rally in the identical macro regime.
It’s because gold doesn’t require coordination, upgrades, or governance to stay a sound asset. Then again, Bitcoin is a hedge that in the end is determined by its skill to adapt.
Conversely, there’s a counterargument that conventional finance faces higher near-term peril from quantum computing than Bitcoin does.
Dragosch stated:
“Banks rely closely on long-lived RSA/ECC keys throughout authentication and interbank communications. As soon as quantum machines can break these, systemic assaults change into potential – far sooner than any sensible risk to Bitcoin’s decentralized structure.”
With this in thoughts, ARK is successfully saying that the advantages of portfolio diversification can justify a BTC place, even when the asset continues to be evolving.
So, the query that hangs over these circumstances is whether or not Bitcoin can credibly coordinate a post-quantum transition with out splintering the social consensus that offers it financial worth.
