Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Viraj Shah's avatar

I worked in this area, helping with quantum networking and sensing commercialization for a few academic labs. One thing that surprised me was how much bullshit went into the grants and how easily certain defense agencies just wrote big checks. It would start with real science, rooted in papers and recent progress. Then you’d paint some insane vision for the future with, and I’m being diplomatic here, an extremely aggressive timeline. Everyone who was in academia seemed to already know that you wrote the grant with one set of targets but you’d realistically hit a fraction of that. If at all. Maybe that’s the way it’s always been? But if it is, it’s new to me.

I think when you can print money or have loose pocketbooks, that incentivizes more and more of this “vision selling” which becomes further and further from the reality. Given my intimate knowledge of this, I don’t believe these timelines for one second. Does that mean we should not fund it or pursue it? No. But a little dose of reality here might actually help longer term rather than hinder it lest we can’t continue this VC pyramid scheme / hot potato game we’ve playing with all tech (e.g. the web, AI) the past few decades.

Todd Royer's avatar

This essay raises the question that interests me most: not whether quantum technology deserves federal support, but what happens when government support begins choosing winners inside a strategically important frontier industry.

The late nineteenth century offers a useful warning. Railroads, oil, steel, and banking did not simply resist government regulation. The most powerful firms often learned how to bend regulation, subsidies, contracts, and public authority toward private advantage.

That is the structural issue here. Quantum computing may be genuinely important for national security, science, encryption, and future infrastructure. But once public money, equity stakes, defense contracts, and political access begin shaping the field, the question becomes: are we building national capacity, or are we creating a new Gilded Age channel for favored firms?

That question is not partisan. It is historical.

No posts

Ready for more?