- Saylor wants to coordinate quantum and other security risks with cyber/crypto experts and a Bitcoin security board.
- Saylor’s core message is: Don’t panic and don’t rush into a protocol fix. Global consensus is crucial because hasty upgrades could create new problems.
Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) reported earnings in Q4/2025Call announced a new Bitcoin security program. According to Michael Saylor, the background is the growing attention to possible future risks – in particular the potential threat from quantum computers, but also “all other emerging security threats”. The move comes at a time when Strategy says it holds 713.52 Bitcoin, controlling around 3.4% of the maximum Bitcoin supply.
Saylor clearly relied on a double message in the call. On the one hand, he appealed to the market not to panic and not to force hasty decisions – especially not to make hasty protocol changes that could end up causing more damage than the feared threat itself.
On the other hand, he offered Strategy, as the largest corporate holder, a role that is more organizational and moderating: taking responsibility, structuring debates, networking the community, without already demanding a concrete technical solution or defining a schedule.
Saylor’s position on the Bitcoin quantum computer danger
Saylor deliberately placed quantum computing into a larger narrative. He portrayed quantum fear as part of a long history of existentially charged Bitcoin threat narratives – “FUD” waves that have accompanied Bitcoin since its early years. In this logic, the quantum threat is “only the most recent” manifestation. The key is not to react reflexively, but rather to remain attentive and able to act.
The core of his argument: A hasty “fix” for a potential problem could itself create new security risks. Saylor explicitly warned that technical interventions could create new attack surfaces – “new attack surfaces, additional complexity and new error or failure modes”. He is alluding to a classic security dilemma: a patch can harden a system in the short term, but can make it more fragile in the long term due to additional complexity – to the point that “the therapy is worse than the disease”.
In terms of content, Saylor positioned the quantum threat as a medium to long-term issue. His central assessment: It would be “probably ten years or longer” before quantum computing actually becomes a real threat – and he presented this as the consensus view. At the same time, he put the question of a “Bitcoin special problem” into perspective: If quantum computers could reliably break certain cryptography, not only Bitcoin would be affected, but a significant part of the digital security infrastructure.
Saylor sees the biggest obstacle less in the mere existence of possible technical solutions than in the social mechanics of Bitcoin changes. Even if there were concrete, implementable approaches, there would still need to be a “global consensus” in the Bitcoin community. Today there is no such consensus – neither about the fact that existing cryptography libraries are at acute risk, nor about what exactly should be done.
This is precisely why a “rush to a hypothetical solution” is risky: it would increase the likelihood of contention, fragmentation and potentially flawed implementations, while the threat may still be years away.
Despite this reluctance, Saylor announced a concrete organizational measure. Strategy wants to initiate a security program that explicitly positions itself at the interface between the Bitcoin community and security expertise. Saylor literally said:
“Strategy will initiate a Bitcoin security program coordinated with the global cybersecurity community, the global cryptosecurity community and the global Bitcoin Security Committee to contribute to consensus and solutions to address the quantum computing threat, as well as any other emerging security threats.”
Michael Saylor announced that Strategy is launching a global effort to develop quantum-resistant upgrades for Bitcoin. pic.twitter.com/7H0eKCcsYy
— TFTC (@TFTC21) February 5, 2026
Strategy is not committing to a specific technical upgrade, but is trying to define itself as a hub: coordination, exchange, standards discussions and, above all, the attempt to prepare for consensus building before the pressure becomes great.
At the same time, Saylor emphasized that relevant answers must come from across the board, not from a single corporate initiative. He repeated this pattern in the Q&A.
When Fundstrat CEO Tom Lee asked about “quantum vulnerable wallets” and possible paths for core developers, Saylor declined to advocate “a specific solution” or “a time frame.” Strategy’s role is to support communities and “facilitate” consensus building, not to “accelerate” processes – and thereby possibly solve problems “that may not even exist in this form.”
No Comments