Galaxy Digital has launched a new push to accelerate post-quantum security work for Bitcoin, pledging up to $5 million in grants for open-source developers. The initiative is designed to support research and engineering across quantum-resistant upgrades, including cryptography research, migration tooling, and formal security reviews.

Alongside the funding, the company announced the formation of a quantum advisory council as part of its Bitcoin Quantum Readiness Initiative. Galaxy said Tuesday that the council will bring together researchers with backgrounds spanning cryptography, applied security, and academic computing—an attempt to turn abstract “quantum risk” discussions into concrete development roadmaps.

Key takeaways

Galaxy Digital is offering up to $5 million in open-source grants aimed at post-quantum cryptography work for Bitcoin-related systems.
The grant scope covers more than algorithms, including Bitcoin signature schemes, wallet/custodian migration tools, and security audits.
A new quantum advisory council under the Bitcoin Quantum Readiness Initiative includes researchers from the University of Calgary, MIT, and Boston University.
Market debate over timelines remains unsettled, with some executives arguing there’s decades before a meaningful threat while other research emphasizes preparation windows.
Existing standards momentum matters because NIST has already published post-quantum encryption standards that could inform future Bitcoin migrations.

What Galaxy Digital is funding

Galaxy’s announcement ties its grant program to practical components of a potential Bitcoin post-quantum transition. According to the company’s statement, the funding will support “quantum-resistant upgrade proposals” and post-quantum cryptography research, with additional emphasis on Bitcoin signature schemes.

The proposal also explicitly targets the implementation layer that many teams often treat as an afterthought: wallet and custodian migration tooling. That matters because even when a cryptographic replacement is theoretically possible, moving users, keys, and custody infrastructure to new standards typically requires careful engineering, operational planning, and risk-managed rollouts.

Galaxy also said the grants include support for formal security audits—an area that can be decisive for institutional adoption, especially when new cryptographic constructions may be unfamiliar to auditors or deployed systems.

Who is on Galaxy’s quantum advisory council

Galaxy Digital’s Quantum Readiness Initiative adds an advisory layer through a council that includes Barry Sanders, professor and scientific director of Quantum City at the University of Calgary; Damien Bérubé, an MIT Sea Grant Knauss fellow; and Eran Tromer, professor of computer science at Boston University.

While advisory councils don’t directly change Bitcoin protocol code, they can influence which research paths are prioritized, how proposals are evaluated, and what “readiness” criteria developers should meet. For builders, that can reduce uncertainty by clarifying the kinds of cryptographic schemes and migration methods most likely to survive scrutiny.

Galaxy’s earlier announcement of the Bitcoin Quantum Readiness Initiative provides the broader context for this step: the new grants and council are positioned as ways to convert readiness planning into deliverables that can be used by open-source contributors.

https://www.galaxy.com/newsroom/galaxy-launches-bitcoin-quantum-readiness-initiative

How much Bitcoin could be exposed?

Concerns about quantum risk have sharpened around how future quantum computers could affect cryptographic systems currently used to secure Bitcoin. Analytics provider Glassnode has argued that a sizable portion of Bitcoin’s supply could be exposed if “cryptographically relevant” quantum computers emerge.

As reported by Glassnode via a Cointelegraph-linked analysis, around 30% of Bitcoin’s supply could be at risk. Glassnode’s breakdown further distinguishes between coins it considers “structurally unsafe” (about 10% of supply due to output type) and “operationally unsafe” (about 20% of supply tied to key or address management practices).

That split matters for investors and developers because it suggests two different problem categories. “Structural” concerns relate to the cryptographic assumptions embedded at the protocol or script level, while “operational” concerns point to practices that exchanges, custodians, and wallet operators can potentially adjust faster than they can rewrite protocol fundamentals.

The timeline fight: “decades” vs “years”

Perhaps the biggest unresolved question behind any post-quantum plan is timing. The community’s debate remains active, with different researchers and executives placing drastically different weights on when quantum capabilities could become dangerous to today’s signature schemes and related cryptographic assumptions.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back argued in November 2025 that Bitcoin faces no “meaningful quantum threat” for at least the next 20 to 40 years. He framed this as sufficient runway for adoption of post-quantum cryptography standards approved by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

At the same time, other research emphasizes a shorter preparation horizon. NIST released its first set of finalized post-quantum encryption standards for key establishment and digital signatures in August 2024, including algorithms that could support future migrations across industries and potentially Bitcoin-related upgrades.

NIST’s standardization is important to the debate because it reduces the “unknown unknowns” around what algorithms might be considered credible at the cryptographic policy level.

Beyond general standards, practical migration proposals are already circulating. In December 2025, Blockstream Research published a paper proposing a hash-based signature scheme as a “promising path for securing Bitcoin in a post-quantum world.” The proposal, as described in coverage, targets replacing Bitcoin’s ECDSA and Schnorr signatures with a scheme designed so that security relies solely on cryptographic hash functions.

And while Back’s long timeline suggests extensive lead time, Bernstein has argued for a shorter window: in an April report referenced in coverage, Bernstein suggested Bitcoin “has about three to five years to prepare” for a post-quantum security upgrade.

Why this matters now even if the threat is distant

Even if quantum breakthroughs are decades away—as some industry leaders expect—the hard part is rarely the cryptography alone. It’s the migration: coordinating changes across wallets, custodians, infrastructure providers, developer ecosystems, and the security processes that institutions use to deploy and maintain cryptographic systems.

Galaxy’s grant design reflects that reality. By funding not only quantum-resistant proposals but also wallet and custodian migration tooling and formal audits, the program acknowledges that “readiness” is an engineering and operational challenge, not just a theoretical one.

For Bitcoin holders, the near-term takeaway is less about expecting immediate protocol changes and more about watching whether the community converges on migration paths that can be implemented safely and iteratively—without forcing rushed transitions if timelines shift.

Readers should watch how Galaxy’s grants translate into concrete open-source deliverables—especially any proposals that connect signature-layer changes to realistic wallet and custody migration plans—and whether ongoing research narrows the gap between long-range quantum timelines and shorter “prepare now” arguments.