Michael Saylor refutes the quantum computing threat: Bitcoin won't collapse, in fact, it will become even stronger

MicroStrategy (MSTR) founder Michael Saylor stated that quantum computing will not destroy Bitcoin; instead, it will make it more robust. He explained that when breakthroughs in quantum computing occur, the Bitcoin network will undergo upgrades, with active Bitcoins migrating to more secure addresses, and lost Bitcoins being permanently frozen. He emphasized that rising security demands and decreasing supply will make Bitcoin stronger. This statement counters market panic over the threat of quantum computing.

Why Michael Saylor isn’t afraid of the quantum computing threat

To understand why Michael Saylor remains optimistic about quantum computing, it’s essential to grasp the actual threat mechanisms of quantum computing to Bitcoin. The powerful computational ability of quantum computing could theoretically crack the elliptic curve cryptography used by Bitcoin, sparking market fears of “Q-Day” (quantum breakthrough day). When Cryptonews interviewed David Carvalho, CEO of the post-quantum protocol Naoris, he predicted that when “Q-Day” arrives, about 30% of circulating Bitcoins could face theft risks.

However, Michael Saylor’s view is entirely different. He believes that breakthroughs in quantum computing will trigger proactive upgrades to the Bitcoin network rather than passive collapse. Saylor explained that the Bitcoin community will deploy quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms before the threat becomes reality. After the upgrade, active Bitcoins can be migrated to new secure addresses, while those long unspent with lost private keys will be permanently frozen.

Saylor’s logic is based on a key assumption: that quantum breakthroughs will not happen suddenly but will be a gradual process. When quantum capabilities approach threat levels, Bitcoin developers will have ample time to deploy countermeasures. In fact, quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms already exist, such as lattice-based cryptography and hash-based signature schemes, which have been extensively studied in academia. The Bitcoin network only needs to complete its upgrade before the threat materializes.

More importantly, Saylor points out that the threat of quantum computing will significantly reduce the circulating supply of Bitcoin. Currently, an estimated 3 to 4 million Bitcoins are permanently inaccessible due to lost private keys. After the network upgrades to quantum-resistant algorithms, these lost Bitcoins will be technically frozen and unable to be moved. This reduction in supply, with demand remaining stable or increasing, will push Bitcoin’s price higher.

Supply reduction logic: how quantum computing can drive up Bitcoin’s value

Saylor’s supply reduction thesis is rooted in basic economic principles. Bitcoin’s value largely derives from its scarcity, with a fixed total supply of 21 million. However, due to lost private keys, the actual circulating supply is much lower. When the quantum threat triggers network upgrades, these lost Bitcoins will shift from “possibly recoverable” to “technically impossible to move,” creating a certain supply reduction that provides strong price support.

Saylor also emphasizes that quantum upgrades will significantly enhance Bitcoin’s security demand. When Bitcoin proves it can withstand quantum threats, its narrative as “digital gold” will be strengthened. Traditional financial assets, including banking systems protected by current cryptography, also face quantum threats. If Bitcoin completes its quantum-resistant upgrade first, it will become one of the few assets able to remain secure in the quantum era, and this security premium will attract more institutional capital.

While Carvalho warns that 30% of Bitcoins may face risks, he also stresses that “the timeline for such breakthroughs remains uncertain, and exchanges are unlikely to allow compromised cryptocurrencies to circulate freely.” This means that even if a quantum breakthrough occurs, crypto exchanges and wallet providers will take measures to protect user assets. Saylor’s view is that these protections will be synchronized with network upgrades, forming a multi-layered security system.

Core points of Michael Saylor’s supply reduction thesis due to quantum computing

Frozen lost Bitcoins: 3 to 4 million unclaimed Bitcoins will be permanently immovable after network upgrade

Sharp decrease in circulating supply: equivalent to removing 15% to 20% of total Bitcoin supply from the market

Increased scarcity: with the 21 million cap unchanged, available Bitcoins will effectively decrease to about 17 million

Upward price pressure: supply reduction combined with demand growth will drive significant Bitcoin price increases

Security premium: quantum-resistant encryption will boost investor confidence and enhance Bitcoin’s status as a safe-haven asset

Michael Saylor demonstrates confidence through action: nearly $1 billion in purchases over two weeks

Saylor’s optimism about the quantum threat isn’t just talk; his company, MicroStrategy, is proving this confidence with substantial investments. From December 12 to 14, MicroStrategy spent $980.3 million to buy 10,645 Bitcoins at an average price of $92,098 per Bitcoin. This marks the second consecutive week of nearly $1 billion in large acquisitions, following last week’s purchase of 10,624 Bitcoins for $962.7 million.

Led by Saylor, MicroStrategy currently holds 671,268 Bitcoins, with a total purchase amount of about $50.33 billion, averaging $74,972 per Bitcoin. This scale of holdings makes MicroStrategy the largest corporate Bitcoin holder globally. More importantly, Saylor’s buying strategy shows he is completely unconcerned about quantum threats destroying Bitcoin’s value.

To fund these massive acquisitions, MicroStrategy primarily sold $888.2 million worth of common stock, supplemented by preferred stock sales. The company has also built up a cash reserve of $1.44 billion. Saylor’s clear goal is to avoid selling Bitcoin to pay dividends or debt interest, sending a strong signal to investors that “Bitcoin reserves will not be touched.”

This operational approach demonstrates that Saylor’s optimism about the quantum threat is not empty talk. If he truly feared that quantum computing would destroy Bitcoin, he wouldn’t be continuously increasing his holdings at this stage. His actions indicate he believes that ultimately, quantum computing will become a positive factor for Bitcoin rather than a threat.