BlackRock Bitcoin warning
In a rare move, BlackRock has quietly added a new line to its iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) filing — and it is turning heads. The update, submitted in early May 2025, flags quantum computing as a potential risk to Bitcoin’s long-term security.
The filing specifically warns that if quantum tech advances far enough, it could break the cryptographic systems that secure Bitcoin.
In their words, it could “undermine the viability” of the cryptographic algorithms used not just in digital assets but across the global tech stack.
It’s the first time you’ve seen the world’s largest asset manager call out this threat so directly in a Bitcoin-related disclosure, and it says a lot about how seriously institutional players are starting to take future-proofing crypto.
Yes, exchange-traded fund (ETF) risk disclosures tend to be exhaustive by nature. But the fact that quantum computing made the cut (alongside more common concerns like volatility and regulatory shifts) suggests it’s no longer just a hypothetical issue in the eyes of big finance.
For investors, this signals two things: first, that Bitcoin isn’t immune to emerging tech threats, and second, that institutional players like BlackRock are actively weighing those risks as they build long-term strategies in crypto.
The message is clear: If the industry wants to stay ahead, preparing for a post-quantum world can’t wait.
Did you know? As of early 2025, BlackRock manages over $11.6 trillion in assets, making it the largest asset manager globally. To put that in perspective, BlackRock’s assets under management exceed the combined GDP of Germany and France.
Bitcoin quantum risk: Is it real?
Quantum computers work differently from the laptops and servers we use today. Instead of crunching numbers one at a time, they can process huge numbers of possibilities at once. That makes them incredibly powerful — especially when it comes to cracking codes.
Bitcoin’s security relies on two major cryptographic systems: SHA-256 and ECDSA. In plain terms, these are the tools that secure your Bitcoin address and make sure only you can authorize transactions. They’ve worked flawlessly for years, but quantum computers could change that.
Here’s the worry: A powerful enough quantum computer might be able to reverse-engineer your private key from your public address, especially during that short window after you’ve broadcast a transaction but before it’s confirmed on the blockchain. If that ever became possible, someone could hijack your transaction and steal your coins.
That sounds dramatic, but it’s not an immediate threat. Most researchers agree they’re still at least 10-20 years away from quantum machines that could actually pull this off. The tech just isn’t there yet — not at the scale or stability needed to break Bitcoin’s cryptography.
Still, the warning signs are flashing. Roughly a quarter of existing Bitcoin (BTC) sits in older wallet formats that could be more vulnerable if quantum leaps happen faster than expected. And even if the timeline is long, the crypto community knows it has to act early. Work is already underway on post-quantum cryptography, which is a security system that could stand up to the next generation of computing.
Did you know? Quantum computers can, in theory, solve certain problems exponentially faster than classical computers. For instance, Google’s Sycamore processor completed a specific task in 200 seconds, whereas it would take even the most advanced classical supercomputers approximately 10,000 years to finish.
Is Bitcoin safe from quantum computing?
While quantum computing still feels like a future problem, the crypto industry is already gearing up for it, and the efforts underway are more serious than most people realize.
What Bitcoin’s doing (and not doing yet)
Changing the protocol behind a blockchain is never simple; you need broad consensus, careful testing and a long lead time. But that hasn’t stopped developers from floating ideas regarding Bitcoin.
One of the most talked-about proposals is something called QRAMP, the Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol. The idea is to push users to move their coins from older, potentially vulnerable wallet formats into addresses protected by newer, quantum-safe algorithms. It would require a hard fork, so it’s no small lift, but it’s a serious plan to future-proof the network before a so-called “Q-Day” sneaks up.
Who’s already ahead?
Some blockchains aren’t waiting around. Algorand, for example, has already integrated Falcon, a post-quantum digital signature algorithm that’s been officially vetted by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). That means transactions on Algorand are already being backed by encryption that could hold up even if quantum machines go live tomorrow.
The Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) is another big one. It was built from day one with this threat in mind, using XMSS (a hash-based signature scheme) instead of traditional cryptography. It’s not a major player in market cap terms, but it’s one of the most advanced projects in terms of pure security design.
Why it’s not easy
Of course, none of this is simple to implement. Quantum-safe cryptography often comes with trade-offs. Algorithms like Falcon are compact and efficient, but they still require more computing resources than traditional ones.
Moreover, switching everyone — miners, exchanges, wallet apps and individual users — to a new cryptographic standard could be a logistical nightmare unless it’s planned years in advance.
Plus, there’s a delicate balance to strike. Move too soon, and you risk breaking things or relying on tech that isn’t battle-tested. Wait too long, and you’re exposed.
That’s why many in the space are eyeing a 10-to-20-year window as a rough estimate for when quantum computing becomes a real threat. But even then, nobody wants to be the last to prepare.
Bitcoin’s future and quantum computing
If there’s one lesson from quantum conversation so far, it’s this: Being early matters. When it comes to tech that could one day rewrite the rules of digital security, waiting around just isn’t an option.
So, what does preparation look like?
For developers, it starts with testing and integrating quantum-resistant algorithms into existing systems. Some are already experimenting with “hybrid” approaches, using both traditional and post-quantum cryptography side by side, so networks aren’t caught off guard if (or when) Q-Day arrives.
For crypto businesses — exchanges, custodians and wallet providers — the job is twofold: Make sure your infrastructure is future-proof, and make sure your users know what’s coming. Education and UX will play a huge role here. Migrating keys and updating protocols isn’t something the average holder can or should do alone.
And then there’s the regulatory side — maybe not the most exciting part of crypto, but an absolutely critical one in this context.
You are already seeing movement: The NIST finalized several post-quantum cryptographic standards in 2024. That gives the industry a starting point, a common language to build around. But what’s still missing is a clear regulatory push that says, “Here’s how and when this should happen.”
Good policy here wouldn’t mean clamping down on innovation — it would mean supporting it. Think: funding open-source research, incentivizing post-quantum upgrades and creating frameworks that help institutions adopt secure standards without killing momentum.
Did you know? The US government began preparing for the quantum threat as far back as 2016, and in 2024, the NIST’s move was sparked by growing fears that quantum computers could one day break the encryption protecting everything from Bitcoin to national security infrastructure.
A slow burn
BlackRock didn’t need to bring up quantum risk in its ETF filing — but it did. And when a company of that size puts it in writing, it turns vague rumors into something much more real.
The transition to a quantum-resistant crypto world isn’t going to happen overnight. It’ll be messy, slow and full of tough technical choices. But it has to happen.
Finally, waiting until quantum computers are actively breaking SHA-256 in the wild would already be too late.