Bitcoin vs. Quantum: Why Mike Novogratz Minimizes the Actual Risk

Concerns about quantum computing have been shaking the cryptocurrency market for the past few weeks. Wall Street is citing this technological threat as a main reason to reduce exposure to Bitcoin, while institutions are adjusting their portfolios. However, according to Mike Novogratz, CEO of Galaxy Digital, this threat is largely exaggerated and used as a simple pretext for divestment.

Quantum threat at the heart of market uncertainties

The debate over quantum computing has intensified significantly in recent months. In January, Christopher Wood, Global Equity Strategy Director at Jefferies, announced the removal of a 10% Bitcoin allocation from his model portfolio, specifically citing this quantum risk. More recently, the Ethereum Foundation elevated post-quantum security to a strategic priority by creating a team dedicated to quantum-resistant signatures.

Coinbase has also publicly acknowledged that quantum computing could pose a real and persistent threat to the crypto ecosystem. These signals from major institutions are fueling growing anxiety among investors, even though experts agree that truly dangerous quantum computers are probably decades away.

An overcomable threat according to Mike Novogratz

During a earnings conference call, Mike Novogratz expressed a diametrically opposed view. The CEO of Galaxy Digital does not see quantum computing as a major risk to Bitcoin, believing instead that the network has the technical capacity to evolve and defend itself.

“Quantum has often served as a big excuse to justify sales,” Novogratz explained. He states that even if this technology will indeed pose a major challenge for the entire world, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general will adapt. “As we approach quantum, the protocol will become more resistant. Bitcoin’s code will be modified in due time,” he assured.

This position aligns with many Bitcoin developers, who emphasize that machines capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography do not exist today and probably won’t for several decades. However, for some financial players, even a distant risk is enough to justify a strategic reassessment.

OG Bitcoin holders gradually abandoning HODLing

Beyond the technical debate, Novogratz addressed a more tangible reality: the gradual selling of bitcoins held by early investors and the “OGs” of the ecosystem. Last year, Galaxy Digital facilitated a massive transaction worth $9 billion involving over 80,000 bitcoins from an investor active since Satoshi’s era. This operation, one of the largest ever in notional value, fueled speculation about the loss of confidence among the historic community in the HODLing strategy.

Novogratz sees this evolution as an inevitable trend. Once early holders start taking profits, a cycle of sales gradually begins. “Then, you sell a little more, you sell a little more, and it becomes so hard to HODL,” he notes. He admits that the religious fervor around the concept of perpetual Bitcoin holding has faded, giving way to a more pragmatic and profit-driven approach.

This cultural shift within the Bitcoin ecosystem illustrates how narrative crises, whether technological or psychological, shape investment behaviors and market dynamics.