edited 11 Oct 2026#1
I got out of crypto many times before, but always jumped in back because of new market condition, this time however many things point to the direction that crypto will soon be finished, there aren't many reasons to hold crypto anymore.
1. Bitcoin will never upgrade to be Quantum safe, Ethereum might
The devs working on bitcoin can't even agree to the smallest updates, let alone convince miners or users, Bitcoin upgrade just won't happen.
If they start locking funds held at old unsafe Bitcoin addresses, Bitcoin will lose all legitimacy. It would no longer be governments, but random groups deciding whose funds to freeze.
If they won't lock, Quantum companies will steal those and sell them.
Both will invoke serious market downturn.
The blockchains might stay usable if you follow a few rules, like no more address reusing, still normies will leave and this time they are not coming back.
2. The 2030 Quantum risk was a big risk already, now we just got another huge risk: AI-accelerated math
3. Basically you could earn much more gains with most tech stocks or even with good enough shitcoins than with BTC or ETH.
The chances of them going up 4x are much lower than the chances of them falling to a quarter of their current price.
I give it maximum 1 more year before Americans with crypto ETFs realize they made a mistake and they’d earn more if they just kept that money in stocks or other ETFs instead.
4. The oil prices are high, that means Republicans will lose the midterms, the Democrats are anti crypto.
Trump will be out in 2 years too, Elon got bored of crypto. Soon nobody will pump crypto, the world will turn anti crypto again.
5. Crypto is money, and AI will decrease the value of ALL money
You can copy and remake softwares in 1 day with AI, softwares that took 10s of software developers a year. The value of human work will decrease a lot in the upcoming years, but AI becomes cheaper and cheaper, as well as creating new products.
Crypto is still good for payments, but from an investment perspective, it’s becoming less attractive: higher risk with smaller and smaller gains every year.
I might be wrong though, so please tell me if any of my assumptions are wrong?
What is a good investment in a post-AI world? I don't know either, I guess the only thing that might go up in value are food and water?
So maybe farmland?
Don’t surrender to FUD.
Sell your crypto only when you want to invest in something valuable. Don’t ever think you can outsmart the market and predict the future. Most often you have to be dumb to make money.
It's not really the Quantum and AI-accelerated math that worries me the most, but that LLMs might shift the economy in a very different way, and hard to predict how.
My theory is that land will be very expensive and most people will be priced out, everything else, crypto, stocks (other than a few company), real world assets, money will all be worthless.
jesuschrist said:It's not really the Quantum and AI-accelerated math that worries me the most, but that LLMs might shift the economy in a very different way, and hard to predict how.
LLMs will need money in the form of crypto. If they are going to disrupt something, that will be traditional banks and monetary system.
jesuschrist said:My theory is that land will be very expensive and most people will be priced out, everything else, crypto, stocks (other than a few company), real world assets, money will all be worthless.
We can’t know, and land is a risky investment like every other investment, by definition. But it makes perfect sense to diversify.
jesuschrist said:It's not really the Quantum and AI-accelerated math that worries me the most, but that LLMs might shift the economy in a very different way, and hard to predict how.
My theory is that land will be very expensive and most people will be priced out, everything else, crypto, stocks (other than a few company), real world assets, money will all be worthless.
you should start seriously thinking about the fact that you don't own anything you cannot protect - times will come when "paper" ownership means nothing - they don't need to take it and compromise their image, taxing is enough to get whatever the wants
@jesuschrist Can you explain why is your argument is so binary? In Reset Times wealth management, there are no certainties, only probabilities.
If they start locking funds held at old unsafe Bitcoin addresses, Bitcoin will lose all legitimacy.
Read this: How Tether printed money out of thin air to buy BTC from 2017-2019
This story has been out for so many years - Tether couldn't pass an audit back then (and still can't pass one today). The most widely accepted hypothesis is that they bought Bitcoin with fugazzi USDT that was backed by pixels on a dashboard (like a bank). Basically an open and shut case of fraudulent price manipulation - but for some reason, Bitcoin didn't lose legitimacy...?
After that episode, I'm slowly learning that even though my ego thinks that I know some stuff about crypto or finance, there's so much shit that I know I don't know, and then there's even more shit that I don't even know that I don't know.
The devs working on bitcoin can't even agree to the smallest updates, let alone convince miners or users, Bitcoin upgrade just won't happen.
When the developers needed to artificially suppress Bitcoin’s block size to 2 MB, which effectively killed its use as peer-to-peer cash, somehow the Bitcoin Core devs magically woke up in the old Bitcoin forums. Roger Ver explained it best. The "no-upgrades" was a feature, almost by design :D
And the Epstein files showed that government-Epstein-corporate Bitcoin collusion has been going on since 2011.
The point is, I have no clue whether it’s truly decentralized or whether it’s literally a government project from the get-go to solve their existential debt problem.
Like who's to say that Bitcoin wasn't designed from the start as a solution to the 2008 GFC crisis... by the exact same banksters who perpetrated it? After all, it's basically the same banking ledger, just decentralized.
Under such a hypothesis, why would the banksters be incentivized to tank it, if it has been working so well as "pristine collateral" for the Eurodollar system for the past decade? I'm not saying it's true, but it is an interesting argument how those "Occupy WallStreet" freedom fighters were actually funding their own cage. Bitcoin literally stemmed blockchains that are now being used for CBDCs.
Hell, who knows if the feds already have a way to crack Bitcoin? Dan Kaminsky said it was impossible, but he also said that Satoshi would have needed a combined set of skills that few people on earth had access to at the time....
... except for maybe the usual 3-letter agency birdies.
If they won't lock, Quantum companies will steal those and sell them.
Both will invoke serious market downturn.
The blockchains might stay usable if you follow a few rules, like no more address reusing, still normies will leave and this time they are not coming back.
I'm not an expert in quant, though I attended a conference on quantum resistance for crypto. The developers working in the space said that your phone password is probably going to be the first thing you'll worry about, as well as all of your e-mail, computer, banking passwords etc.
In simple terms - you don't need to have the best bike lock in the world. You just need a lock that's harder to break than the ones on the other kid's bikes in the neighborhood.
Again, I'm not an expert, but if you paint it as a black and white choice to stay in crypto, where everything depends on 100% certainty that it can't be hacked, who's to say that quant computing will even arrive in your time-frame...?
..... You said you've been trading before, and as the trading analogy goes, being right early still means you're wrong.
What is a good investment in a post-AI world? I don't know either, I guess the only thing that might go up in value are food and water?
So maybe farmland?
Here, I can produce an article that will scare you from buying any land. Again, everything is a balance of probability AND MANAGING RISK.
You’re confusing the possibility of an event with its probability. The fact that something could happen doesn’t mean it will, or that its consequences are inevitable.
Quantum computing is a legitimate risk, but nobody knows when a machine capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography will exist. 5 years? 20? 50?
Btc isn’t immutable. SegWit and Taproot are proof that it can evolve. The difficulty of reaching consensus is a feature of decentralization, not evidence that upgrades are impossible.
Post-quantum cryptography already exists, and Bitcoin developers are working on potential solutions. Whether and how they will be implemented remains an open question.
As for Tether, Epstein, the CIA and Satoshi secretly working for the bankers, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Bitcoin’s cryptographic security. We might as well discuss the Illuminati.
Bitcoin has survived 17 years of technical challenges, regulatory hostility and predictions of imminent collapse. That doesn’t guarantee anything, but it’s empirical evidence worth considering.
Investing is about probabilities and risk management. That means assessing the likelihood, timing and consequences of a threat, rather than treating every conceivable catastrophe as inevitable.
As a trader, you should know that being able to imagine a risk doesn’t mean you’ve correctly priced it.
bitcoin has some serious problem... like centralized mining or compromised bitcoin core devs and influencers
quantum computing is far smaller issue
first, when it comes that far there are many encrypted secrets from the past no one can hide anymore that will get decrypted inevitably sooner or later (think twice where you guys store your emails and documents)
then Satoshi's coins... I'm a big proponent of burning these coins based on consensus change - if he/she/them is gone for good or doesn't care then no harm is done; if Satoshi cares then we can give him one year notice or what not... enough time to move the coins to safe addresses that don't have public keys exposed
newer addresses are safe and will be for a long time; there is also plenty of time to develop not only post quantum cryptography but also techniques that hide everything sensitive to quantum attack
study, don't let FUD change your mind and make the unforgivable mistake of falling for the cargo cult of AI and QC - bitcoin means far more
chicharito said:@jesuschrist Can you explain why is your argument is so binary? In Reset Times wealth management, there are no certainties, only probabilities.
Because we never experienced anything like this before, have you seen the amount of hacks that happened the past year, or the number of AI discovered in Linux, PHP?
chicharito said:The point is, I have no clue whether it’s truly decentralized or whether it’s literally a government project from the get-go to solve their existential debt problem.
Unlikely as governments rarely innovate, they just steal. But it is possible they already took over control of the development of the big projects, etc.
chicharito said:I'm not an expert in quant, though I attended a conference on quantum resistance for crypto. The developers working in the space said that your phone password is probably going to be the first thing you'll worry about, as well as all of your e-mail, computer, banking passwords etc.
They are stupid then, sure quantum computing will cause problems in other areas like TLS, but centralized services are much less vulnerable than blockchains. They can just block attackers on the network level, as they are not just protected by math but many other layers, blockchain only by math and nothing else.
jesuschrist said:have you seen the amount of hacks that happened the past year,
Almost none of them were AI, and the few that got labeled that way were labeled by people selling AI. Attribution is a marketing exercise now, because whoever gets to name the cause gets to sell the fix. The boring truth underneath is that most of those breaches were human error, with better PR.
jesuschrist said:Unlikely as governments rarely innovate
They rarely innovate for the public's benefit. When the goal is enriching themselves, the tax funded R&D machine suddenly finds billions to spend. Government innovation is real, it just follows the money, and the money almost never points at you.
jesuschrist said:but centralized services are much less vulnerable than blockchains
Not really. A patch to Bitcoin Core or one of its forks and the problem is gone, and that's the point: the "decentralized" chain still gets fixed by a handful of people. Running your own node doesn't decentralize the development, the funding, or the mining pools. Crypto has plenty of centralization, it's just wearing a decentralized costume.
That's also the wrong layer to be arguing about. The real value only unlocks once you're in terrain where people will deal with you directly in coin. Most people price crypto through the markets, the CEXs, and the governments standing between them and it. You can bypass all three.
True power moves in silence.
