Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

Big news today: the Trump administration has formally approved a framework allowing Bitcoin to be offered as an investment option in select 401(k) retirement plans. This move, supported by recent regulatory shifts and increasing institutional pressure, opens the door for millions of Americans to allocate a portion of their retirement savings directly into BTC.

While adoption will likely start conservatively — limited to plans with modern custodial infrastructure and strict compliance standards — the psychological and financial implications are enormous. Bitcoin is no longer just a fringe asset or a speculative hedge; it’s now entering the most conservative, mainstream corner of personal finance: retirement accounts.

What this marks, more than anything, is the deepening entanglement of Bitcoin within the broader U.S. economic machine. Between ETFs, corporate treasuries, public pension exposure, and now retirement plans, Bitcoin is increasingly woven into the fabric of modern finance. Whether you believe in its future or not, the truth is that unwinding Bitcoin from the financial system is no longer a simple matter.

Like the internet in the late 1990s, Bitcoin has crossed a threshold — it’s no longer an outsider trying to break in; it’s inside the walls.

That can be a great thing — if this is, in fact, the early stages of a digital monetary revolution. Bitcoin’s fixed supply, decentralized nature, and programmable infrastructure could serve as a resilient foundation for a more transparent, open, and efficient financial system. For a generation of savers and workers increasingly skeptical of fiat inflation and disillusioned with traditional finance, allocating a portion of their 401(k) into Bitcoin could be both a philosophical and economic bet on a more digital future. It could also act as a hedge — not just against inflation, but against systemic monetary mismanagement.

But there’s another, darker possibility: that we are threading Bitcoin so deeply into our financial infrastructure that if the protocol ever fails — whether due to technical, regulatory, or security collapse — it could pull down enormous portions of capital with it.

If Bitcoin ever implodes after reaching true institutional scale, it could spark a global liquidity crisis, shake faith in U.S. financial judgment, and potentially accelerate the erosion of American economic dominance. In other words, if you thread a volatile protocol too tightly into the most systemically important investment vehicles — like 401(k)s — and it fails, the damage might not be containable.

To help you think clearly about where this is heading, I’ve included two takes that I think represent the best of the Bitcoin bull thesis, from someone who believes Bitcoin could 10x or more— and the best of the Bitcoin bear thesis, from an extremely well written article that predicts — with technical specifications — that Bitcoin will go to $0.

The first is a bull case from my friend and macro investor James Lavish, who sees Bitcoin as the only rational hedge against inevitable fiat debasement. The second is a bear case — arguably one of the most under-discussed risks in the space — that quantum computing could render Bitcoin’s cryptography obsolete and reduce the entire network to digital dust. Both are well-informed, well-reasoned perspectives. And you deserve to understand both.

I'm not telling you which side to take — because honestly, I'm still wrestling with it myself. But make no mistake: we’re undergoing a paradigm shift in finance that rivals the creation of the internet or the removal of the gold standard.

If Bitcoin scales into…say…a $20 trillion asset — as some bulls predict it will (gold’s current market cap) — it could either be the final step toward financial decentralization or the biggest systemic risk in modern economic history. Either way, you need to understand the stakes. Read both sides.

James Lavish presents a compelling bull case for Bitcoin, rooted in a deep understanding of macroeconomic imbalances and the structural flaws of modern fiat systems. At the core of his thesis is the idea that we are locked into an inescapable debt spiral — a condition where developed nations, particularly the U.S., must continuously expand credit and debase their currency just to meet existing obligations. This includes massive entitlement programs, ballooning interest payments, and escalating defense spending. In such an environment, where monetary policy is used not as a tool of stability but as a political necessity, Lavish argues that a hard, incorruptible asset like Bitcoin becomes not just attractive, but essential.

What distinguishes Lavish's perspective is how he arrived at Bitcoin after years in traditional finance, initially skeptical like many of his Wall Street peers. He was introduced to Bitcoin through personal and intellectual curiosity, accelerated by the pandemic-era money printing, and deepened by his own research. Eventually, he came to view Bitcoin as "singular" among digital assets — a mathematically governed, decentralized monetary network immune to policy manipulation and impervious to centralized control. Lavish likens it to "digital gold," but better: finite in supply, globally accessible, and secured by a distributed energy-based consensus mechanism that makes it practically unchangeable and nation-state resistant.

???? 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

For Lavish, Bitcoin's real power lies in its ability to act as a hedge against the unavoidable erosion of purchasing power caused by fiat currency debasement. He explains how the monetary system, when colliding with deflationary forces from technological innovation, is forced to expand even faster just to maintain the illusion of stability. Bitcoin, in contrast, offers a store of value that doesn’t rely on perpetual growth or centralized trust — just math and consensus. He argues that as more people understand this — not just investors, but institutions and governments — Bitcoin’s market share will grow, gradually siphoning capital away from weaker stores of value like gold, real estate, and eventually even sovereign debt.

Lavish is also bullish on the growing legitimacy of Bitcoin in the eyes of institutional finance. He points to recent regulatory shifts, like the changes in GAAP accounting and the rollback of punitive SEC rules, as well as increasing stablecoin demand — all of which help embed Bitcoin deeper into the financial system. His fund, which operates on a Bitcoin standard, reflects his belief in Bitcoin’s long-term outperformance relative to other risk assets. He’s not just passively holding; he's actively deploying capital into both Bitcoin and Bitcoin-adjacent companies that are building real revenue-generating businesses around the ecosystem.

Ultimately, Lavish sees Bitcoin as a rational response to a broken system. It’s not just about outsized returns or hype cycles — it’s about opting out of a fiat regime that’s lost credibility and anchoring to a monetary asset that operates independently of political whim. For Lavish, Bitcoin isn't merely an investment — it’s a lifeboat. You can listen to his full bull case included in this article here. 

And on the bearish side of things — if you care about Bitcoin—whether you're a casual HODLer, a developer, or a diehard maxi—here, linked on my blog, you will find an article you need to read. It’s not alarmist, it’s not anti-Bitcoin; it’s a technically grounded, eye-opening breakdown of how quantum computing could upend the very cryptographic foundations that Bitcoin is built on.

The implications aren’t some distant sci-fi threat—they're real, they’re accelerating, and most shockingly, they’re rarely discussed in mainstream crypto circles. This piece lays it all out with clarity, urgency, and a surprising dose of wit. Ignore it at your own risk. The key points go something like this.

Bitcoin’s core security is built on cryptographic assumptions that may not hold in the near future. At the heart of Bitcoin lies SHA-256 hashing and ECDSA digital signatures—techniques once thought unbreakable. These methods rely on the idea that you can’t reverse-engineer a hash or derive a private key from a public one. But quantum computing changes the game.

Grover’s Algorithm could dramatically reduce the effort needed to attack the SHA-256 hash function, while Shor’s Algorithm can outright crack ECDSA, threatening Bitcoin wallets that have already exposed public keys—especially those used in past transactions.

The danger isn’t hypothetical—it’s already baked into Bitcoin’s history. Over 89% of Bitcoin has public keys visible on-chain, meaning a future quantum computer could eventually seize control of those funds. Even legendary wallets like Satoshi’s are vulnerable.

If a quantum actor ever accesses these coins—whether to steal them, prove a point, or just test a capability—it could spark panic. The mere perception that Bitcoin's “immovable” foundation is compromised may shatter trust and trigger a catastrophic sell-off before any patch or fork can be coordinated.

And fixing it isn’t simple—if it’s even possible. Bitcoin’s strength is its immutability, but that same rigidity could be its downfall. Transitioning to post-quantum cryptography would require mass coordination across exchanges, wallets, miners, and users—many of whom are inactive or unreachable.

It's not a simple update; it’s a complete overhaul. And unlike centralized platforms, Bitcoin can’t be “paused” or quickly patched. So if a quantum breakthrough arrives before a full migration is done, Bitcoin’s codebase could be broken, and with it, the very trust that gives it value. Read the full bear case here:

Bitcoin bulls respond to the quantum computing bear case by arguing that while the threat is real in theory, it remains distant in practice — likely a decade or more away due to the immense technical challenge of building a sufficiently powerful and error-corrected quantum computer. In the meantime, they emphasize that the Bitcoin developer community is already exploring and drafting proposals for post-quantum cryptographic upgrades, such as integrating quantum-resistant signature schemes like SPHINCS+ or XMSS.

Bulls also point out that Bitcoin’s open-source, decentralized nature gives it a unique advantage: if a credible quantum threat emerges, the network can coordinate a protocol upgrade through soft or hard forks, much like it has adapted in the past. Ultimately, they see the quantum threat not as a death sentence, but as a solvable engineering problem — one Bitcoin will have ample time and incentive to address.

Either way, with today’s news about Bitcoin getting even deeper into the U.S. economic system, it seems like a great time for a refresher on the best, and worst case scenarios.

I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.