Bitcoin faces quantum computing scrutiny and heavy leveraged short positioning, with SOPR stabilization, ETF inflows and CME gap levels shaping whether a 10% move triggers a cascade of liquidations.

Bitcoin’s potential vulnerability to quantum computing threats has drawn attention from institutional investors, while derivatives markets show concentrated short positions vulnerable to liquidation on a 10% price rally, according to market data and industry observers.

Venture capitalist Nic Carter stated that large institutional holders could pressure Bitcoin developers if potential quantum computing threats are not addressed, according to reports from Coin Bureau. The comments come as institutional exposure to Bitcoin has expanded through spot exchange-traded funds and custodial products.

Liquidation data analyzed over the weekend indicated that a significant volume of short positions would face unwinding on a 10% upside move, while substantial long positions remained exposed to liquidation on an equivalent decline, according to trader Ted Pillows, who shared the analysis on social media platform X.

Pillows’ figures showed that leveraged short positions outweighed vulnerable long positions, creating conditions where an upward price movement could trigger rapid buybacks. The analysis identified specific trigger levels that could open a path toward higher price zones, while noting a nearby area tied to a Chicago Mercantile Exchange futures gap.

CoinGlass liquidation maps reflected elevated leverage across derivatives venues, with open interest clustering around round-number strikes. The positioning followed weekend momentum periods, when reduced liquidity often amplifies price movements.

On-chain analyst miracleyoon observed that the Short-Term Holder Spent Output Profit Ratio moved below the 0.95 capitulation zone before recovering toward 1.0. The metric measures whether short-term holders sell at a profit or loss and often signals shifts in local trend behavior, according to the analyst.

The analyst stated that sustained positioning above 1.0 would imply absorbed selling pressure and could extend a technical rebound, while failure to hold that threshold would reopen range-bound conditions. The recent drawdown lacked the intensity seen on August 5, 2024, when the ratio fell toward 0.9, according to the analysis.

CryptoQuant contributor Amr Taha compared retail flows on cryptocurrency exchange Binance with institutional exchange-traded fund activity. On February 6, retail-driven sell pressure exceeded 28,000 Bitcoin, coinciding with a price drop, according to Taha’s data. A second wave on February 13 surpassed 12,000 Bitcoin, even as prices attempted stabilization.

Spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds posted their first positive net flow day since January on February 6, according to the same analysis. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust led with notable inflows, followed by Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund, suggesting institutions accumulated holdings during periods of retail selling.

Carter framed the quantum computing issue as governance pressure rather than an immediate technical flaw, arguing that capital concentration alters power dynamics within open-source systems, according to Coin Bureau’s report. The discussions have resurfaced as more corporate treasuries and asset managers have allocated capital through regulated investment vehicles.

Analyst Teddy Bitcoins stated that the current market structure mirrored the 2022 price decline, projecting a potential substantial decline in 2026 based on chart symmetry. The thesis relied on cyclical behavior patterns rather than immediate catalysts, according to the analyst’s commentary.

The quantum risk discussion intersects with leverage imbalances and on-chain stabilization signals, reflecting different time horizons from short-term liquidations to multi-year structural considerations. Markets have absorbed these factors simultaneously, adjusting exposure across spot and derivatives venues.

Traders are monitoring whether Bitcoin prices can sustain momentum above key trigger levels to force short covering, while failure to defend nearby support levels could revive gap-fill scenarios. Developers face renewed debate over cryptographic upgrade paths as institutional ownership increases, though immediate price movements appear more likely to emerge from leveraged positioning dynamics.