Stacks Founder: Quantum Risks Are Already Curbing Bitcoin Growth

Quantum computing has moved from theoretical risk to a question that may influence how quickly institutions allocate capital to Bitcoin. Stacks co-founder Muneeb Ali says fears around quantum security are already dampening investment appetite, and that the market’s confidence depends on whether developers can clearly outline a credible path toward quantum-resistant safeguards.

Speaking during an interview on Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction podcast, Ali argued that uncertainty about how and when Bitcoin’s cryptography could be upgraded—especially in a way that institutions view as actionable—may cause risk-averse investors to wait rather than commit large purchases.

Key takeaways

• Stacks founder Muneeb Ali links institutional hesitation in Bitcoin to perceived quantum security uncertainty and the lack of a concrete upgrade roadmap.
• Ali warned that delays in meaningful progress toward quantum-resistant protections could heighten risk concerns as timelines approach 2028 and beyond.
• Ali points to NIST guidance as a basis for targeting quantum-resistance transitions around 2030, with the possibility of earlier timelines if quantum progress accelerates.
• Developers are pursuing quantum-attack mitigations, including benchmark improvements to “last-resort” quantum-resistant transaction preparation methods reported by StarkWare.
• Ali also argued that disagreements over the urgency of the threat can themselves damage investor confidence even if the underlying risk turns out to be less immediate than feared.

Why quantum uncertainty could matter for institutional capital

Ali’s central claim is less about proving that a quantum attack is imminent, and more about how uncertainty shapes investor behavior. In his view, when risk managers cannot evaluate a clear security upgrade trajectory, they are more likely to delay exposure—especially for large, time-sensitive allocations.

He said there could already be a “ceiling” on Bitcoin’s growth tied to quantum fears. The practical implication for institutions is straightforward: without confidence in how Bitcoin will be protected against future advances in quantum computing, investors may treat Bitcoin as carrying an avoidable tail risk.

Ali also emphasized that even within the Bitcoin ecosystem there is disagreement about how serious the threat is. He suggested that conflicting views on urgency can still undermine confidence—because institutions generally prefer predictable, verifiable timelines for mitigation rather than open-ended debates.

Timelines Ali highlighted: 2028, 2030, and the role of NIST

Ali warned that Bitcoin could face a more difficult period if developers do not show meaningful progress toward quantum-resistant security by 2028. His reasoning is grounded in implementation reality: security upgrades typically take years to develop and deploy, and there is additional friction involved for users moving funds to new addresses after changes are made.

Looking further ahead, Ali pointed to 2030 as a transition target for quantum-resistant security, citing guidance from the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He said advances in artificial intelligence could potentially accelerate quantum computing development, which could shift that timeline earlier—possibly toward 2029.

At the same time, Ali acknowledged that some Bitcoin proponents believe quantum risk is too distant and that concerns may be overstated. His argument was that, regardless of where the threat ultimately lands, markets may continue to price uncertainty in the absence of a credible, shared upgrade plan.

Who would attack Bitcoin—and how researchers are responding

Ali suggested that if a quantum capability strong enough to threaten Bitcoin ever becomes available, it would more likely come from major research organizations rather than from an “unknown attacker.” He also reasoned that large technology firms would have less incentive to use such capability for theft due to the legal and regulatory exposure such actions would carry.

However, he warned that a successful or even plausible quantum threat would not remain isolated to Bitcoin. “If Bitcoin gets hit, everyone gets hit downstream as well,” Ali said, pointing to how confidence in the broader crypto market is interconnected—particularly when Bitcoin’s security assumptions affect the systems built around it.

While Bitcoin-specific protocol changes remain the more definitive path, the ecosystem is also exploring intermediary defenses. In September, StarkWare reported that researchers reduced the estimated computing cost of preparing an experimental quantum-resistant Bitcoin transaction by 79% after a weeklong optimization effort. Cointelegraph previously covered that update, noting that the work did not require changes to Bitcoin’s consensus rules.

StarkWare’s framing, as reported, is that the method functions as a “last-resort” measure. Even with the benchmark improvements, the reduction has been demonstrated in test settings rather than established as a fully generalized, production-ready mechanism. The company has continued to advocate for a longer-term protocol-level upgrade.

What investors should watch next

Ali’s comments underline a key factor for Bitcoin risk assessment: not only whether quantum computers will eventually pose a threat, but whether the ecosystem can communicate and execute a security transition plan that institutions can trust on realistic timelines. Readers may want to track progress toward quantum-resistant approaches and whether benchmark advances like those reported by StarkWare translate into clearer operational pathways—especially as milestones approach the late-2020s window Ali highlighted.