Quantum computers have become the latest universal explanation for Bitcoin’s recent decline, but NYDIG says the numbers don’t support the story. In a Feb. 17 research note, NYDIG research head Greg Cipolaro argues that “quantum fears” are loud, but not the main driver of the selloff when you look at search behavior, cross-asset correlations and broader risk positioning.
Quantum panic didn’t sink Bitcoin
NYDIG frames “Cryptographically relevant quantum computers,” as the theoretical endgame risk investors keep circling. The problem is that market behavior doesn’t look like a reappraisal of an immediate existential threat.
First, Cipolaro points to Google Trends. Search interest in “quantum computing bitcoin” has increased, he wrote, but the timing is important. “Search interest in ‘quantum computing bitcoin’ has increased, but this has mainly occurred alongside bitcoin’s rally to new all-time highs, not in anticipation of continued weakness,” the note said.
“In other words, increased searches for quantum risk coincided with price strength rather than weakness. If the market were to reprice bitcoin based on an impending technological threat, we would expect search intensity to lead or amplify downside risk, and not be accompanied by a period of gains.”
Related reading
Second, NYDIG looks at how Bitcoin traded against publicly traded quantum computing stocks, specifically IONQ, QBTS, RGTI, and QUBT. If investors were to exit Bitcoin because quantum advances are “catching up,” you would expect quantum-linked stocks to diverge positively as Bitcoin declines. NYDIG says it has seen the opposite. Bitcoin was positively correlated with those stocks, and those correlations became stronger during the decline, suggesting a shared driver rather than direct quantum-to-Bitcoin causality.
NYDIG’s conclusion on that point is blunt. “The data does not provide evidence that quantum computing is the direct cause of Bitcoin’s weakness, even though this is the dominant risk narrative at the moment,” Cipolaro wrote. “The more plausible explanation is a broader macro reassessment of risks for long-term, expectations-based assets. Bitcoin’s recent decline seems more consistent with shifts in overall risk appetite than with any single technological catalyst.”
Related reading
The mechanism that NYDIG highlights is familiar to anyone who looks at liquidity regimes. Quantum computing companies, he argues, are long-duration, expectation-based assets with minimal revenues and high EV/revenue multiples. Although Bitcoin is structurally different, it is often traded as a long-term bet on future adoption and monetary dynamics. When risk appetite decreases, both can be affected together.
Meanwhile, NYDIG is signaling a divergence in the derivatives markets that, in its view, better reflects the current tape than the quantum heads. The 1-month annualized basis on CME has traded “persistently above” Deribit, which NYDIG uses as a proxy for onshore US institutional positioning versus offshore positioning.
A structurally higher CME base implies that US agencies have remained more constructive, while the sharper decline in Deribit’s 1-month base suggests increasing caution abroad and reduced appetite for leveraged long exposure.
At the time of writing, Bitcoin was trading at $66,886.
Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com