Bitcoin’s Quantum Risk Is Now a Wider Economic Concern for Crypto Biz

Bitcoin’s long-term security may be under a cloud even before quantum computers ever threaten the network directly, according to Stacks founder Muneeb Ali. Speaking on Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction podcast, Ali argued that uncertainty around quantum-readiness is already shaping how some institutions view Bitcoin—despite the recent surge in US spot Bitcoin ETF inflows.

At the same time, the crypto industry is seeing major regulatory and market developments elsewhere: Ripple has secured final federal approval for a national trust bank tied to RLUSD’s reserve and custody framework; USDC has overtaken Tether’s USDt in euro-denominated stablecoin trading as MiCA reshapes exchange incentives; and VanEck has introduced a new multi-asset ETF that includes a small allocation to Bitcoin via existing spot BTC products.

Key takeaways

• Quantum risk is already affecting institutional sentiment, Muneeb Ali says, even as US spot Bitcoin ETFs surpass $104 billion in net assets, according to Bitbo data.
• Ali points to 2028 for meaningful quantum-resistance progress and 2030 as a broader target—while implementation and address migration could take additional years.
• Ripple’s US federal banking charter clears the final regulatory hurdle for its national trust bank, supporting RLUSD reserves and custody arrangements under federal supervision.
• MiCA-driven trading restrictions have shifted euro liquidity toward USDC, with Kaiko reporting USDC at 56% of euro stablecoin trading versus 10% in January 2024.
• VanEck’s new ETF adds Bitcoin exposure indirectly, targeting a 2% allocation accessed through a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded product rather than holding BTC directly.

Quantum uncertainty may be slowing Bitcoin’s institutional momentum

Bitcoin’s quantum problem is typically framed as a future technical risk. Ali’s argument, however, is that the market’s timeline is shorter than the technology’s. If meaningful progress toward quantum resistance stalls, institutional investors may hesitate—not because Bitcoin is immediately vulnerable, but because the credible path to upgrading becomes unclear.

Ali said Bitcoin needs a credible roadmap for becoming quantum-resistant, with “meaningful progress” required by 2028, and a longer transition period extending toward 2030, aligning with guidance associated with the US National Institute of Standards and Technology. He also noted that advances in artificial intelligence could compress that schedule, potentially accelerating when practical quantum threats become more plausible.

Even if the community ultimately agrees on the necessary technical protections, Ali emphasized the operational reality: upgrades in Bitcoin history have often been slow and contentious. That means implementation could span years—followed by additional time for holders to move their coins to quantum-resistant addresses once the new safeguards are live.

Ali’s central investment concern is that uncertainty itself can be destabilizing. “Even if” the community reaches agreement later, the period of doubt can reduce confidence among institutions that require clarity and a believable security roadmap. He also warned that any genuine quantum breakthrough capable of undermining Bitcoin would likely ripple across the wider cryptocurrency market, not just Bitcoin holders.

For readers tracking institutional flows, this matters because it frames security risk as an economic variable, not purely a technical one. Bitbo data shows US spot Bitcoin ETFs have already accumulated more than $104 billion in net assets, suggesting the market is actively allocating to Bitcoin today. Ali’s perspective implies that if quantum-resistance planning does not stay on a credible, timely track, institutions may reassess—or at least demand more certainty before increasing exposure.

Ripple clears the last step for a national trust bank tied to RLUSD infrastructure

Ripple announced that it has received final approval from the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish a national trust bank. The approval completes the regulatory process after Ripple had earlier secured conditional approval in December 2025, according to Cointelegraph coverage linked in the source.

Ripple’s newly chartered entity—described as the Ripple National Trust Bank—will operate under federal supervision. Its mandate includes managing reserves backing RLUSD, acting as a collateral trustee for tokenholders, and providing digital asset custody services. The source also specifies that RLUSD issuance will continue through Standard Custody & Trust Company, which remains regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse welcomed the decision, stating that “crypto and banks work better together.” The announcement arrives in a broader context of stablecoin and custody-related banking charters: Circle received final approval for a similar national trust bank in July (as noted in the source), while Coinbase, Crypto.com, and Bridge—described as Stripe-owned—remain at the conditional stage.

The article also highlights an important distinction between national trust banks and traditional commercial banks. Unlike commercial banks, national trust banks generally cannot accept deposits or issue loans and do not carry Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation coverage. That detail matters for anyone evaluating what this charter enables: the emphasis is on reserve management, collateral trustee functions, and custody—core plumbing for stablecoin operations—rather than retail banking.

USDC overtakes USDt in euro trading as MiCA pressure concentrates liquidity

Stablecoin competition in Europe is taking a clearer shape as MiCA rules reshape exchange behavior. According to a Kaiko report referenced in the source, Circle’s USDC has overtaken Tether’s USDt in euro-denominated stablecoin trading, now representing 56% of the market versus just 10% in January 2024.

The shift accelerated after major exchanges restricted USDt trading for customers in the European Economic Area to comply with the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). Kaiko’s data suggests that the change isn’t just about market share—it’s also reflected in trading depth. USDC euro order books are reportedly around 40% deeper than USDt’s, implying stronger liquidity for traders during euro pairs trading.

Despite USDC’s relative strength in Europe, USDt remains dominant globally. The source notes that Tether’s circulating supply is approximately 2.5 times larger than USDC’s, an asymmetry that continues to favor USDt on a worldwide basis even if Europe’s trading venues increasingly concentrate on MiCA-compliant instruments.

The regulatory backdrop is also expanding. The European Banking Authority designated USDC as the bloc’s first “significant e-money token,” subjecting it to additional oversight (as detailed in the source). Kaiko suggested that the US GENIUS Act could lead to similar trading shifts in the United States, depending on how exchanges implement the new requirements.

For market participants, the practical takeaway is that regulatory compliance is increasingly translating into venue-level liquidity. Traders sensitive to spreads and order-book depth may see tangible differences in execution quality as stablecoin access changes by jurisdiction.

VanEck’s new ETF adds a small Bitcoin sleeve to a multi-asset portfolio

In traditional asset management, VanEck has launched an actively managed exchange-traded fund designed to blend stocks, bonds, and real-assets exposure, with a targeted allocation to Bitcoin. The fund—named the VanEck Wealth Builder ETF (NYSE: WBMO)—was announced Tuesday, according to the source.

VanEck’s product targets a 2% allocation to Bitcoin, with the weight able to vary between 1% and 5%. The fund does not hold Bitcoin directly; instead, it provides Bitcoin exposure through a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded product. That structure is intended to fit Bitcoin into a broader framework rather than positioning it as the core risk driver of the portfolio.

David Schassler, VanEck’s head of multi-asset solutions, argued that the familiar “60/40” stock-and-bond portfolio was built for a different economic regime. By adding real assets—and with Bitcoin forming a small slice—VanEck is effectively reframing Bitcoin as part of a diversified toolkit for changing macro conditions.

The bigger implication is how Bitcoin is being packaged for investors who may not want direct crypto custody or exposure mechanics. While this does not replace the broader debate about long-term security, it does underline an enduring market reality: Bitcoin’s accessibility through regulated wrappers continues to expand even as technology risk discussions remain unresolved.

Looking ahead, the most important question is whether quantum-resistance planning becomes more concrete and less contested before the 2028 “meaningful progress” deadline Ali highlighted. In parallel, investors should watch how MiCA-style compliance continues to rearrange stablecoin liquidity in Europe, and whether more asset managers choose similar incremental Bitcoin allocations rather than waiting for a single, definitive security milestone.