#1 Quantum keys merely increase the bitsize. It means you upgrade from SHA256 to SHA512 or a larger bitwise number. There's no guarantee that this would be effective against a true quantum computer, if one is ever created.
#2 Clock speed, optimization and a smaller silicon lithographic etching process in nanometers could be cited to claim protection against quantum brute forcing. But would any of those marketing claims withstand the reality of it? Its not something anyone is making an effort to place a guarantee on.
Our disagreement only really hinges on the fact that you believe that we have no idea what quantum computers can do because they don't exist (or practical ones at least) yet, whereas I believe that current projections of their capabilities would be close to what they can actually do. If we have to insist on
guarantees against something that doesn't exist yet (and thus couldn't be tested), then there's literally nothing we can do to prepare at the moment. If that's your line of thinking, then I suppose your belief on its effect on prices is justified.
True, but it could also be explained by
Bakkt being announced one day prior to that post.
The current drop also coincided with Bakkt starting slow, so I believe it's more likely that traders are more interested in watching Bakkt than Google's paper. I could be wrong, of course. Pointing to what caused price movements is difficult even in hindsight, but I think it's reasonable at this point to assume that the hype (and that hype being shot down) behind Bakkt can move the market.