Image Credit: Shutterstock
Key Takeaways
- HKMA rated Hong Kong’s banks 2.3 out of 10 on quantum preparedness, with 32% of banks yet to start a transition, and set a 2030 deadline for full readiness.
- Bitcoin faces a comparable quantum threat but has no central regulator or authority to mandate a transition timeline.
- Technical fixes exist (BIP-360, BIP-361), but activation depends on decentralized consensus, not regulatory decree.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published a white paper on July 27 rating the city’s banking sector 2.3 out of 10 on quantum preparedness, then set a 2030 deadline to fix it. Bitcoin faces the same underlying threat but has no regulator with authority to set a comparable deadline. Any technical response would require agreement across its decentralized network of developers, miners, and node operators.
HKMA Survey Finds Banking Sector Early in Quantum Transition
The HKMA’s first Quantum Preparedness Index found the banking sector at an early stage. Roughly half of surveyed banks have no formal post-quantum cryptography plan, and 32% have not started their transition at all, according to the regulator’s white paper.
Despite that starting point, the HKMA can force the pace by regulatory fiat. It announced a post-quantum cryptography toolkit developed with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, alongside industry workshops, aiming for every bank in the sector to reach a full score of 10 by 2030. The regulator said in its July 27 announcement:
“The HKMA will continue to support the banking sector’s PQC transition, with the aim of achieving full sectoral readiness (a QPI score of 10) by 2030 through practical guidance, training, and industry engagement.”
Bitcoin Lacks a Central Regulator for Quantum Risk
Bitcoin faces a comparable threat: a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could eventually derive private keys from exposed public keys, potentially exposing coins to theft. But no single entity can mandate a transition timeline the way a banking regulator can.
Oxford quantum computing lecturer Stefano Gogioso, speaking on the BeInCrypto Experts Council, contrasted Bitcoin’s position with Ethereum, where a foundation at least shapes a post-quantum roadmap even without direct enforcement power. Gogioso said:
“Bitcoin has a completely different governance structure in that it doesn’t have one.”
A Technical Fix Already Exists
Bitcoin developers have not ignored the problem. A proposal called BIP-360 was published and merged into Bitcoin’s official proposal repository on February 11, 2026, introducing a new output type called Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR). It works similarly to the existing Taproot format but removes the specific spending path that would expose a public key to a quantum attack.
A merge into the proposal repository documents a possible upgrade; it does not by itself mean the change will activate on the network. Bitcoin upgrades require broad agreement among node operators, miners, and developers before they take effect.
A second, more contested proposal, BIP-361, was published on April 14, 2026. Co-authored by Casa co-founder Jameson Lopp, it would phase out Bitcoin’s legacy ECDSA and Schnorr signature types and, eventually, make coins that fail to migrate to quantum-resistant addresses difficult to spend.
The Consensus Problem Is Bigger Than the Code
BIP-361 raises a specific concern: reporting on the proposal has put the volume of BTC sitting in old pay-to-public-key addresses at figures ranging from roughly 1.7 million to as high as 6.9 million BTC, depending on which address types are counted as exposed. Coins widely attributed to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto make up a significant share of those holdings, though the precise total tied to Satoshi specifically is not independently confirmed.
CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju has argued that consensus, not code, is the real obstacle. He has said Bitcoin’s community rarely unites behind changes that appear to touch the network’s founding principles, a dynamic that applies directly to any proposal that could freeze coins tied to Bitcoin’s creator.
Bitcoin’s quantum transition depends on the same process that governs other protocol changes: rough consensus among a decentralized set of participants. There is no fixed deadline and no authority to impose one.
Where Each System Stands
Hong Kong’s banks will be measured against a fixed 2030 target, with a regulator tracking their progress along the way. Bitcoin has no comparable regulator or deadline. Whether BIP-360 and BIP-361 activate depends on whether the community reaches agreement on proposals that affect some of the network’s oldest and most symbolically significant coins.
