Citi analysts warn that Bitcoin faces greater quantum risks than Ethereum, highlighting urgent concerns for institutional investors.
A recent analysis from Citi has raised alarms regarding the quantum computing risks facing Bitcoin, suggesting that these threats are significantly greater than those confronting Ethereum. The report, published on May 18, highlights that advancements in quantum technology could allow attackers to breach Bitcoin's cryptographic security much sooner than previously anticipated.
The findings resonate with a study from Google Quantum AI and Stanford University, which revealed that the computational requirements to crack Bitcoin's security are roughly 20 times lower than earlier estimates. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could potentially extract a Bitcoin private key from its public counterpart in as little as nine minutes, a scenario that, while currently theoretical, is approaching reality.
Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve digital signature algorithms for security, which become vulnerable during transactions when public keys are temporarily exposed. Quantum computers using Shor's algorithm could exploit this vulnerability. Nic Carter of Coin Metrics has warned that by 2028, quantum technology could pose a serious threat to Bitcoin's cryptography, putting approximately 6.9 million BTC at risk.
However, upgrading Bitcoin to mitigate these risks is complicated by its governance structure. The process is deliberately slow and consensus-driven, with significant upgrades like SegWit and Taproot taking several years to implement. Current proposals addressing quantum risks remain in early development stages, and the urgency to act is not reflected in the community's response.
In contrast, Ethereum has adopted a proactive approach to combat quantum risks. The network's roadmap incorporates standards for post-quantum cryptography, and upgrades such as the Pectra upgrade in May 2025 have already begun implementing necessary changes. Ethereum's design allows for individual accounts to transition to quantum-safe signatures without requiring a network-wide overhaul, facilitating a more agile response to emerging threats.
As governments and institutions increasingly recognize quantum risk as a pressing issue, Bitcoin holders must weigh the implications of maintaining an asset without a clear strategy for quantum resistance. Meanwhile, Ethereum offers a transparent and actively pursued upgrade path, positioning it as a more resilient option in the face of evolving technological challenges.
In summary, while both Bitcoin and Ethereum face risks from quantum computing, Ethereum's proactive measures and more adaptable governance structure make it better equipped to handle future threats. For institutional investors, this distinction could prove critical in digital asset treasury management.
