What Did Christopher Wood Change in His Portfolio?
Christopher Wood, global head of equity strategy at Jefferies, has removed bitcoin entirely from the firm’s “GREED & fear” model portfolio, eliminating a 10% allocation that had been in place since the pandemic-era stimulus cycle. The exposure was reallocated evenly, with 5% shifted into physical gold bullion and 5% into gold mining stocks.
In a note shared this week, Wood said the decision was driven by concerns around quantum computing and its potential impact on Bitcoin’s cryptographic security. While he does not expect an immediate price effect, he argued that the long-term store-of-value case for bitcoin has weakened for institutional portfolios with multi-decade horizons.
“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.
Investor Takeaway
Why Is Quantum Computing Now Part of the Bitcoin Debate?
Wood pointed to a May 2025 study by Chaincode Labs researchers Anthony Milton and Clara Shikhelman that estimates between 4 million and 10 million BTC — roughly 20% to 50% of the circulating supply — could be exposed to quantum-enabled key extraction under certain scenarios. The research highlighted exchange and institutional wallets as particularly exposed due to address reuse.
Bitcoin’s original investment case rested heavily on its fixed supply and cryptographic security. With the final coins scheduled to be mined around 2140, scarcity was seen as comparable to gold, but with digital portability. Quantum computing introduces a different kind of risk: not dilution, but the possibility that private keys could eventually be derived from public information.
That risk remains theoretical, but it has moved closer to mainstream discussion as quantum hardware development accelerates. The concern is not that quantum attacks are imminent, but that long-lived assets held for decades may need to withstand capabilities that do not yet exist.
How Are Institutions Responding to the Quantum Question?
Awareness across the crypto and finance sectors has been building. In January, Coinbase’s head of investment research David Duong warned that up to one-third of bitcoin’s supply — especially coins held in reused addresses or early “Satoshi-era” wallets — could be especially exposed if large-scale quantum attacks became viable. He pointed to growing institutional focus on the issue.
That attention has reached regulated products as well. In May 2025, BlackRock amended the prospectus for its iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF to include explicit disclosure around quantum computing risks, a step that underscored the issue’s relevance for fiduciaries and regulated investment vehicles.
On the technology side, Microsoft’s February 2025 unveiling of its Majorana 1 quantum chip was widely seen as a milestone that brought discussions of “Q-Day” — the point at which existing encryption could be broken — into sharper focus, even if timelines remain uncertain.
Investor Takeaway
What Are Crypto Networks Doing About Quantum Risk?
The growing focus has triggered defensive moves across the industry. This week, Project Eleven raised $20 million in a Series A round at a $120 million valuation to build tools aimed at protecting crypto networks from quantum threats. The funding round was led by Castle Island Ventures.
Even sovereign holders have adjusted their practices. Last August, El Salvador split its bitcoin reserves across 14 separate addresses, citing security upgrades tied to emerging risks, including those linked to quantum computing.
Ethereum has also grappled with the issue. Co-founder Vitalik Buterin has laid out conditions he believes are necessary for a quantum-safe Ethereum, including resistance on century-long timescales. He has argued that quantum resilience is a prerequisite for any blockchain that hopes to operate without ongoing developer intervention.
Does This Undermine Bitcoin’s Store-of-Value Case?
Wood’s decision does not suggest an imminent failure of Bitcoin’s security model. Instead, it reflects a different standard applied by long-term institutional investors. For assets held as generational stores of value, even low-probability, high-impact risks can matter.
By shifting capital back into gold and gold miners, Wood is returning to assets with centuries of history and no dependence on cryptographic assumptions. The move highlights a widening gap between bitcoin’s appeal as a trading or adoption-driven asset and its role in conservative, long-duration portfolios.
As quantum computing advances, the debate is likely to deepen. Whether Bitcoin can adapt its security model in time — and whether institutions are willing to wait — may become one of the defining questions for its place alongside traditional stores of value.
