Directionally, I agree with this take, but it lacks urgency. We don't know when, or even if, a CRQC will arrive. That's not the point. Cryptography exists to provide trust in our systems, and once that trust erodes, it has to be rebuilt. Rebuilding takes time. We shouldn't wait for a CRQC to act. The whole world is going to migrate, and NIST has already laid out a timeline. For Bitcoin, the problem is harder: we need social consensus. As a community, we need to agree on a migration plan. What's the new signature scheme? Do we deprecate ECDSA and Schnorr? What's the impact on block size and throughput? Soft fork or hard fork? What's the activation timeline? And critically: what happens to coins that don't migrate, including the millions of BTC sitting in addresses with exposed public keys, or Satoshi's? These are concrete questions we need to answer before the FUD builds and trust erodes. The main question shouldn't be "Is there a quantum computer capable of breaking Bitcoin out there?" Framing the debate solely through that lens is a recipe for disaster.