Following Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential elections in November 2024, financial markets have shown strong performance. However, Bitcoin has remained relatively weak, raising questions among investors. During this period, Bitcoin fell by approximately 2.6%, while silver surged by 205%, gold by 83%, Nasdaq by 24%, and S&P 500 by 17.6%. This underperformance by Bitcoin, the pioneer of the cryptocurrency market, has brought the “why” question back to the forefront among investors.
Quantum Computer Claims and Counterarguments
Among the prominent figures fueling the recent debate is Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures. Carter has suggested that the “mysterious” lag in Bitcoin’s performance is due to the threat of quantum computers, labeling it as the “story of the year.” Quantum computers have long been considered a theoretical risk, with the potential to threaten Bitcoin’s cryptographic infrastructure in the future.
However, this view has not been widely accepted within the crypto community. Checkonchain analyst @Checkmatey likens blaming flat prices on quantum fears to explaining every market drop as “manipulation.” According to him, the primary drivers of the market are supply balance and investor positions. In 2025, unusually extensive selling by long-term investors (HODLers) created pressure on a scale unseen in previous bull cycles.
Similarly, renowned Bitcoin investor and author Vijay Boyapati argues that the price movements stem from much simpler reasons. Boyapati believes that, with the price surpassing the $100,000 mark, major investors releasing a significant amount of Bitcoin into the market naturally weakened the upward momentum.
Technical Realities, Market Dynamics, and New Developments
On the technical side, the consensus is that the quantum threat is still quite distant. Blockstream co-founder Adam Back asserts that even in the worst-case scenario, there will be no sudden and network-wide asset loss. Additionally, Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360 (BIP-360) offers a roadmap for gradually transitioning to quantum-resistant address formats, should the need arise.
While these debates continue, another development impacting the crypto market is the fluctuation in institutional interest regarding spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States. In January, some major funds reduced their ETF positions, increasing short-term price pressure. However, the entry of new Asia-based funds into the market indicates that long-term institutional demand has not entirely disappeared. This suggests that Bitcoin’s future is too multifaceted to be reduced to a single risk headline.
Nevertheless, attributing Bitcoin’s recent weak performance solely to the quantum computer threat would overlook the complex nature of the market. Supply increases, major investor behaviors, and macroeconomic capital flows exert much more tangible effects on prices. Although the quantum risk is a technically serious issue, it does not provide a sufficient rationale for explaining short-term market movements.
