Mentioned in This Article
1. Quantum computing and Bitcoin dominate adviser conversations
Lorenzo Valente, director of research for digital assets at ARK Invest, said in a livestream recorded on October 12 that about 70% of the questions the firm receives from registered investment advisers concern quantum computing risk to Bitcoin and other blockchains. He added that he is more optimistic than a year ago that Bitcoin will upgrade its signature scheme before quantum machines become a practical threat.
The remark is a useful window into what professional money managers want to know about digital assets. Many observers of the sector assume that the finer points of token design, such as supply inflation, fee capture and protocol revenue, occupy the minds of the investors who allocate client money to crypto. According to Valente, that assumption does not match the questions arriving at ARK.
Valente said the firm hears from registered investment advisers and from wealth-management platforms, the intermediaries that build portfolios for individual clients. In his account, the typical inquiry is not about a particular network's income. It is about whether the cryptographic signatures that protect blockchain funds will have to be replaced, and which networks have the stronger plan for doing so.
2. Why advisers care about quantum risk more than token revenue
Valente said the metrics that crypto insiders take for granted, including token inflation and the revenue a protocol earns, are largely unfamiliar to the advisers who contact ARK. These are people who spend their working lives on asset allocation, suitability and client communication, and they have rarely had reason to study the economics of individual blockchains.
Quantum computing, by contrast, is a subject they already know something about. Valente suggested that advisers are familiar with it because it is a general-purpose technology that has been discussed in many other fields, from drug discovery to national security. When a technology with that kind of reputation is said to threaten the security of a new asset class, the question follows naturally.
The host of the program said she found the level of sophistication among advisers impressive. Valente's explanation was less about adviser expertise in crypto and more about the reach of the quantum story, which has spread well beyond the technical community that follows cryptography closely.
For an adviser, the concern is also practical. A professional who recommends a holding to a client is expected to be able to explain the main risks to it. A possible weakness in the basic mechanism that secures ownership of an asset is the type of risk that is difficult to leave unaddressed in a client conversation, even if the danger is considered remote.
This dynamic is not unusual in financial advice. Advisers tend to respond to risks that clients can understand and that they can describe in plain language. A question such as whether a new asset could become insecure within the holding period of a long-term portfolio is easier to raise with a client than a discussion of fee mechanisms or emission schedules, which require specialist knowledge to interpret.
3. How far away is the quantum threat?
ARK's internal view places the quantum threat roughly 10 to 20 years away, Valente said. He was careful to note that quantum computing is not his own area of research, that he is not a cryptographer, and that the work behind the firm's estimate was done by others.
He also said that progress in artificial intelligence makes such forecasts harder to pin down. If AI systems accelerate advances in mathematics and in the design of quantum algorithms, a timeline that looked comfortable a few years ago could shrink. Valente described the situation as "definitely scary" for that reason, and said it complicates any attempt to set an investment horizon around the risk.
The discussion followed a post on October 7 by researcher Justin Drake. Drake argued that ECDSA, the elliptic-curve digital signature algorithm that secures keys on both Bitcoin and Ethereum, could in the worst case be broken within months rather than years, pointing to the pace of AI progress in mathematics. His claim set off a debate in the industry about how seriously to take short timelines.
The gap between a 10-to-20-year institutional estimate and a worst-case scenario measured in months illustrates why the subject is so unsettling for allocators. Neither number is a firm prediction. Together they define a wide range, and a prudent adviser has to ask what happens if the lower end proves closer to the truth.
Valente's caution about his own expertise is also worth noting. A research director at an asset manager typically relies on specialists for questions of cryptography, and the 10-to-20-year range is best understood as a working assumption that informs the firm's planning, not a scientific forecast. The firm itself acknowledges that the range is uncertain, which is part of why it participates in efforts to prepare early.
For investors, the practical consequence of an uncertain timeline is that preparation has to begin well before the danger is certain. Software upgrades to widely used networks take years to design, test and deploy, and holders need time to move their coins. A transition that starts late could leave a window in which the threat arrives before the migration is complete, which is why even those who consider the risk distant are taking it seriously.
4. What would a quantum computer break in Bitcoin?
A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could break the elliptic-curve signatures that prove who owns coins on Bitcoin and similar networks. Those signatures let an owner authorize a transfer without revealing the private key. If a machine could derive a private key from the public information visible on the network, it could in principle forge a signature and move someone else's funds.
The point at which a quantum computer becomes capable of that feat is often called Q-Day. The term is shorthand for the moment when today's widely used public-key cryptography stops being safe. The reason advisers ask which networks have a better plan is that the fix is not a simple patch. Moving to a new signature type means agreeing on a standard, changing software and persuading holders to migrate their coins.
The questions advisers raise, in other words, are about governance and coordination as much as mathematics. A network that can agree on and carry out a transition in time is in a stronger position than one that cannot, regardless of how strong its token economics look on paper.
Ethereum faces the same underlying problem, since Drake's warning applied to the signature scheme used by both networks. That shared exposure is one reason the question comes up in conversations about the crypto asset class generally, not just about one coin, and why advisers ask for comparisons between networks.
5. Why Valente is more optimistic about Bitcoin
Asked how Bitcoin can deal with the threat, Valente said ARK has spoken with large industry players and with core developers. He said the firm belongs to a consortium alongside Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, and other companies that are working on the issue.
The group is the Bitcoin Security Consortium, which Strategy announced in July. Its founding members include ARK, BlackRock, Coinbase and Fidelity Digital Assets, among others. The membership list shows that some of the largest asset managers and trading platforms in the market have organized around the quantum question.
Valente said he now expects Bitcoin to find a solution and complete a transition before Q-Day. A year ago, he said, he was much more worried. What changed, in his telling, is awareness: people now recognize the issue and are working on it, which was less true when he first began to weigh the risk.
He also pointed to a shift in who has something at stake. ETF issuers, exchanges, developers and miners all now depend on Bitcoin in ways they did not two or three years ago, and Valente said more companies rely on the network today than at that earlier point. That broader base of commercial interest, he suggested, raises the odds that the ecosystem will coordinate on a solution.
A consortium of this kind does not by itself change Bitcoin's software, which depends on its open-source developers and the wider community of node operators and miners. What it can do is bring resources, research and attention to the problem, and give large institutions a place to coordinate their positions. Valente described that engagement as one of the reasons for his improved outlook.
6. What the adviser focus means for crypto investment
The 70% figure is Valente's own estimate of the questions ARK receives, not a survey result, and it should be read in that light. Even so, it points to a clear pattern: the concerns that shape whether wealth managers feel comfortable recommending Bitcoin are about security and long-term durability, not about the quarterly performance of a token.
That has implications for how crypto projects and fund sponsors communicate with the advice community. Material that focuses on token metrics may not answer the questions advisers actually have. A credible, specific explanation of how a network intends to move to quantum-resistant signatures may matter more to a platform deciding whether to include the asset in model portfolios.
It also helps explain the formation of industry groups focused on the issue. When the people who distribute products to end investors keep asking the same question, issuers and exchanges have a commercial reason to be able to answer it. Valente's comments suggest that, at least for ARK, the answer has become more reassuring over the past year even as the uncertainty about timing has grown.
For readers following the story, the next signs to watch are concrete steps by developers toward quantum-resistant signatures, and whether the questions that advisers put to asset managers continue to center on quantum risk or shift to other topics as the transition plans become clearer.