US Quantum Investments: Experts Demand Clear Rules of the Game
Quantum computing is becoming a critical field for U.S. state industrial policy, but large-scale injections of budget funds into technology companies require transparent and strict regulations. This topic is currently being actively discussed in the professional community, and I fully share the opinion that without clear rules, the risks will outweigh the potential benefits.
Unlike drones, batteries, or rare earth metals, where the state can stimulate the market through government procurement and regulation, the quantum sector is unique. There are virtually no commercial products here, the dominant architecture is undefined, and production chains are only just forming. It is precisely early government intervention, before technological dependencies become entrenched, that may be justified from a national security perspective.
Connection with cryptography and threats
Scalable quantum computers have the potential to break public-key cryptography in the future, directly threatening the security of blockchains and digital assets. Related developments in sensors, navigation, and communications also have dual-use applications. Therefore, the sector is a rare case where direct government investment may be justified, but this should not become a universal model of support.
U.S. Department of Commerce Program: $2 billion for quantum factories
On May 21, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the signing of nine letters of intent totaling $2.013 billion under the CHIPS and Science Act. The funds are directed toward two quantum factories and seven companies developing quantum computing.
Key recipients:
- IBM — $1 billion to create a subsidiary for producing quantum-class superconducting wafers.
- GlobalFoundries — $375 million for a secure quantum factory.
- Atom Computing, D-Wave, Infleqtion, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum — $100 million each.
- Rigetti — up to $100 million.
- Diraq — up to $38 million.
A condition of support is a minority, non-controlling stake for the state. It is this point that caused Google to decline participation: the corporation believed that the requirements slow down the path to creating a useful quantum computer.
Three principles for government investment
Analysts propose three key principles for direct government investment in technology companies:
- Intervene only when there is a clear need for national security or a serious economic vulnerability that the market cannot address on its own.
- Do not invest money where a finished product can be purchased. In the quantum sector, this approach does not yet work, as the necessary products do not yet exist.
- Support should maintain distance between the state and business. Taxpayers should benefit from company growth, but direct share ownership creates political risks.
Warrants are proposed as a tool — they give the state the right to participate in value growth without full control.
Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to accelerate the transition of federal systems to post-quantum cryptography. However, for Bitcoin, the problem is more complex: a decentralized network cannot be updated by government decree.
My conclusion: Quantum technologies are not just another hype, but a fundamental challenge for the entire crypto industry. Government investment is necessary, but without clear rules and risk-sharing, we risk ending up with not innovations, but politicized projects with low efficiency. The market needs not subsidies, but predictable conditions for development.