Google’s Quantum Warning Exposes a Big Problem for Crypto

Today’s operating landscape is full of pitfalls for businesses, particularly crypto-native ones.

Companies that spent years building up bitcoin treasuries are now reportedly exiting the market, while on Wednesday (April 1) the Solana-based DeFi exchange Drift suffered an attack that drained $285 million in digital assets.

And a new report from Google, titled “Safeguarding cryptocurrency by disclosing quantum vulnerabilities responsibly,” is only adding to the sector’s woes by highlighting the fact that quantum computing capable of breaking the cryptography underpinning bitcoin, ethereum and nearly the entire public chain ecosystem, is getting closer to reality.

“We want to raise awareness on this issue and are providing the cryptocurrency community with recommendations to improve security and stability before this is possible, including transitioning blockchains to post-quantum cryptography (PQC), which is resistant to quantum attacks,” Google researchers wrote.

The assertion cuts against the popular narrative that decentralized systems are inherently more resilient. Instead, Google’s analysis highlights a structural asymmetry: banks can quietly upgrade their cryptographic infrastructure, while public blockchains are bound by transparency, immutability and social consensus.

Many systems rely on cryptographic primitives, especially elliptic curve signatures, that are theoretically vulnerable to sufficiently advanced quantum attacks. While those attacks remain impractical today, the exposure is already embedded in the chain.

This vulnerability introduces a new axis of consideration in the buy/build/partner landscape as crypto edges deeper into the institutional mainstream.

More here: Google Says Q-Day Coming, Migration Deadline Now 2029

The Compression of the Quantum Timeline

In the past, vulnerabilities were often reactive and discovered after systems were deployed and exploited. Quantum risk is different because it is anticipatory. The threat of Q-Day, when it becomes both economically and technically feasible for quantum capabilities to reach and breach practical cryptographic relevance, has long been known about well before the capability actually exists.

“Starting conversations now about how to protect bitcoin against quantum computing does make sense, as it takes time for the bitcoin ecosystem to reach a consensus around decisions,” Alexei Zamyatin, co-founder of BOB (“Build on Bitcoin”), told PYMNTS in an interview published in January.

At the center of Google’s research is a refinement of how quantum attacks might unfold. Researchers estimated that breaking the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem could require fewer than 1,200 logical qubits and under 500,000 physical qubits—roughly a 20-fold reduction from earlier assumptions.

That matters because the feasibility of quantum attacks has always hinged on scale. Quantum computers today are still far from this threshold. But progress in quantum hardware and algorithm design has been steady, and this research suggests that the gap may be narrowing faster than expected.

Under plausible assumptions, Google stressed that such an attack could be executed in minutes on a sufficiently advanced machine.

See also: The Quantum Clock Is Ticking on Blockchain Security

The Coordination Problem No One Can Solve Alone

The problem for the blockchain finance ecosystem is that migrating a decentralized ecosystem is a coordination challenge of unprecedented scale.

Blockchains are not just technical systems; they are socio-economic networks. Any meaningful protocol change requires agreement across miners or validators, developers, exchanges, custodians and users. Even relatively minor upgrades have triggered contentious forks. A wholesale shift to post-quantum cryptography would be orders of magnitude more complex.

First, there is the question of compatibility. Existing wallets, smart contracts and infrastructure are built around current cryptographic standards. Replacing those primitives risks breaking interoperability or stranding assets tied to legacy keys. Second, there is the issue of timing. Move too early, and the ecosystem incurs unnecessary cost and fragmentation. Move too late, and assets may be exposed.

For institutional investors, the implications are immediate. As crypto becomes embedded in portfolios, custody platforms and payment rails, quantum risk shifts from theoretical curiosity to fiduciary concern.

Meanwhile, recent research by PYMNTS Intelligence shows that among middle market companies, crypto is used mostly for payments rather than treasury. The research shows a “gap between awareness and use,” with just 13% of middle market firms using stablecoins, and only 5% use cryptocurrencies.

“Even among those that have adopted digital assets, usage remains tightly bounded. Stablecoins are most often used for specific payment functions, such as paying domestic suppliers or receiving cross-border funds,” PYMNTS wrote recently.