The Quantum Rubicon: Why the US urgently needs rules for investing in future technologies
Quantum computing is not just another technological trend, but a strategic frontier where the stakes are measured in national security and global economic dominance. Unlike the markets for drones or batteries, where the government can act through procurement and regulation, the quantum sphere is unique: there are virtually no commercial products, the dominant architecture is undefined, and production chains are only just emerging. This is why direct government intervention here is justified, but it requires strict and transparent rules to avoid turning innovation into a bureaucratic trap.
Billions at Stake: Who Received Funding
In May, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the allocation of $2.013 billion for quantum projects under the CHIPS and Science Act. The funds will go toward creating two quantum factories and supporting seven companies. Key recipients:
- IBM — $1 billion for a subsidiary to produce 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.
The condition for support was the government receiving a minority, non-controlling stake. This clause led Google to decline participation: the corporation deemed that the requirements slow down the path to creating a useful quantum computer.
Three Principles of Reasonable Intervention
Analysts propose a clear framework for government investment in technology, which could become a standard for all industrial policy:
- Intervene only when there is a threat to national security or a critical economic vulnerability that the market cannot address on its own.
- Do not invest in what can be bought. For quantum computing, this is currently irrelevant—needed products do not exist in industrial form.
- Maintain distance between the government and business. Taxpayers should benefit from company growth, but direct equity ownership creates political risks and distorts market incentives.
Warrants could serve as a tool for this—they give the government the right to participate in value growth without control over management.
Quantum Security and Bitcoin
Scalable quantum computers in the future threaten public-key cryptography, putting the entire blockchain infrastructure at risk. The presidential executive order to accelerate the transition of federal systems to post-quantum cryptography is a correct step, but for decentralized networks like Bitcoin, the problem is more complex: they cannot be updated with a simple directive. Concurrently, the Pentagon launched the Farseer program to develop quantum sensors with a budget of up to $200 million.
My expert opinion: The quantum race is not a competition of speeds, but a marathon for survival. The U.S. is right to lay the foundation now, but the key risk is not a lack of funding, but excessive control. If the government regulates the process too strictly, we risk ending up not with a quantum breakthrough, but with an expensive bureaucratic experiment.