CZ says quantum won’t kill crypto, it needs a calm post-quantum development
Summary
- Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao said crypto systems only need to upgrade to post-quantum algorithms to handle quantum computers and “there’s no need to panic.”
- He warned that the development of decentralized networks would be messy, could cause forks and force users to migrate to new wallets, but said that the dead projects that remain excluded would “clean up” the market.
- CZ suggested that Satoshi’s immobile Bitcoin should be locked or destroyed if it lies beyond a fixed window to avoid quantum era theft, insisting that “encryption is easier than decryption” and crypto will survive the quantum era.
Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao tried to allay fears about quantum computing, arguing that cryptocurrencies are more in need of a move to post-quantum encryption instead of fighting the current collapse. In a new post on X, Zhao wrote that crypto networks “only need to upgrade to post-quantum algorithms to face the impact of quantum computing,” adding that “there is no need to panic” despite the huge debate about the so-called Q-Day conditions.
His comments come as researchers warn that between 4.5 and 5 million Bitcoins, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, reside in old address formats that could be compromised once quantum hardware and algorithms mature.
Zhao acknowledged that moving from today’s cryptography to post-quantum standards will be complicated in a decentralized environment. Developing node software and wallet infrastructure requires extensive collaboration, he noted, and “the choice of algorithms can spark debate and lead to forks,” echoing long-standing disagreements about how Bitcoin and other chains handle major protocol changes. He added that some projects that successfully halted development “may not be developed,” but included that as a form of market cleansing, meaning that quantum pressure “helps clean up such projects” that no longer have active savers. In the short term, Zhao warned that the new post-quantum code “could introduce risks or security issues,” and that users with holding assets will need to move balances to new, secure wallets once the standards are agreed upon.
One of Zhao’s most provocative proposals concerns Bitcoin, which is associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, the anonymous creator of the network. He argued that if Satoshi’s coins persist—”it means it’s still active,” but that if they remain untouched for more than a certain period of time, “the appropriate addresses must be locked or destroyed to prevent hacking” in the quantum future. This comment touches a sensitive heart: analysts estimate that Satoshi may control about 1 million BTC, and Deloitte has warned that early-stage addresses with exposed public keys put a large part of 4.5 million Bitcoin at risk of volume.
Zhao also echoed the idea popularized by figures like Julian Assange that “encryption is easier than decryption,” arguing that advances in computing power ultimately favor defenders because they can generate powerful algorithms faster than attackers can break them. As national post-quantum cryptography standards have been finalized in the US and are expected in China within three years, telecoms and banks are being pushed onto the map where vulnerable public key cryptography resides and migrate high-value systems before any practical attack. In that context, CZ’s claim that the cryptocurrency “will continue to exist even after the quantum era” is in line with a recent study from CoinShares, which said that the quantum threat to Bitcoin is “real but still in years” and ultimately “manageable” through planned improvements.
In a previous crypto.news article on “Q-Day” scenarios, experts warned that if Bitcoin fails to use anti-price signatures around 2026-2028, the price and confidence may be disrupted as attackers target addresses. Another story highlighted how national regulators are now treating post-quantum cryptography as a board-level issue, pressuring financial firms to find vulnerable systems, prioritize critical data and plan for a decade-long migration rather than waiting for last-minute objections. The third story about the size of the threatening area said that the real danger today is the attack of “harvest now, delete the write later” against long-lasting secrets, a class that includes crypto keys stored in cold storage – a danger that makes the time for the development of the wallet and protocol changes more important as the algorithms are chosen.
