On July 27, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority published a white paper rating the banking sector's quantum preparedness at just 2.3 out of 10. The HKMA wants full readiness by 2030, but about half of surveyed banks have no formal post-quantum cryptography plan. Bitcoin faces the same quantum threat — but without a central regulator to set deadlines, its transition depends on community consensus.
The HKMA's scorecard
The white paper gives a stark assessment. A score of 2.3 means most banks are in the early stages of understanding the risk. 32% haven't even started their transition. The HKMA's target is a 10 by 2030 — a huge gap.
Bitcoin's governance problem
Bitcoin has no HKMA equivalent. Oxford quantum computing lecturer Stefano Gogioso noted that Bitcoin's governance structure is completely different from Ethereum's, lacking a central foundation. That makes coordinated upgrades harder. CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju warned that consensus, not code, is the real bottleneck.
Proposals on the table
Two Bitcoin Improvement Proposals aim to address quantum risks. BIP-360 would introduce a Pay-to-Merkle-Root output type via soft fork to mitigate long exposure attacks on taproot outputs. BIP-361, co-authored by Casa co-founder Jameson Lopp, would phase out legacy ECDSA and Schnorr signatures — but could make unmigrated coins difficult to access.
The Satoshi problem
Roughly 1.7 million BTC sits in early pay-to-public-key addresses, mostly attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto. Those coins are especially vulnerable to quantum attacks. No one can move them without the private keys, and there's no central authority to force an upgrade.
The HKMA has set a 2030 deadline for banks. Bitcoin has no such timeline. The community will need to reach consensus on a quantum-resistant upgrade — and soon, if the 1.7 million BTC is to be protected.
