Let’s get one thing straight. Every time a new piece of incomprehensible tech jargon escapes a Silicon Valley lab and stumbles into the daylight, the same thing happens. The explainers pop up, the TED Talks get booked, and a flood of emails hits my inbox asking the same damn questions. This time, the magic word is "quantum," and the questions are about stocks like QBTS. "Is it a good buy?" "What's the best quantum stock?" "Who's investing?"
Give me a break. Asking which quantum computing stock is the "best" is like asking which brand of unicorn saddle you should invest in. You’re debating the finer points of a fantasy, a story sold to you by people who profit from the telling, not the outcome. You’re not an investor in this game; you’re the exit liquidity.
People see a stock ticker like QBTS—D-Wave Quantum, for the uninitiated—and their brains immediately jump to the wrong conclusion. They think they’re getting in on the ground floor of the next Microsoft or Google. What they’re really doing is buying a lottery ticket with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics attached to it.
This isn't investing. No, "investing" doesn't cover it—this is high-stakes gambling dressed up in a lab coat. Investing is when you analyze a company’s revenue, its profit margins, its market share, its clear path to making more money next year than it did this year. You look at a company like D-Wave, and what do you see? You see staggering losses. You see promises of a future that’s perpetually five to ten years away. You see a technology so complex that 99.9% of the people buying the stock couldn’t explain it to save their lives.
It's the ultimate "trust me, bro" business model. They’re selling a narrative, a dream of solving climate change, curing diseases, and revolutionizing finance. The pitch deck probably glows in the dark. But when you strip away the buzzwords, the actual, tangible, money-making product is... well, it’s complicated. The road from a handful of qubits in a super-cooled chamber to a line item on a profit-and-loss statement is long, winding, and littered with the corpses of other people's money.
This whole sector is like a concept car at an auto show. It’s sleek, futuristic, and generates a ton of press. Everyone gathers around, oohing and aahing at the impossible design and the promises of a hydrogen-fusion engine. But you can’t buy it. You can’t drive it to the grocery store. It’s a marketing tool, a symbol of what could be. Buying stock in a pre-revenue quantum computing company is trying to pre-order that concept car. Good luck with that.
When you buy a share of QBTS, you’re not buying a piece of a functioning business in the traditional sense. You're buying a piece of a research project. A very, very expensive research project. The core problem is that quantum computing isn’t just a faster computer; it’s a completely different way of thinking about computation. It’s not about making your Netflix stream better or your spreadsheets calculate faster. It’s designed to solve a very specific, very weird class of problems that are currently impossible for even the biggest supercomputers.
What are those problems? Ask the companies, and they’ll give you a laundry list: drug discovery, materials science, financial modeling, breaking encryption. It sounds amazing. It’s offcourse a brilliant marketing strategy. But how far are we from a quantum computer actually doing one of those things better and cheaper than a classical computer? Nobody knows. And I mean nobody. Not the CEO, not the engineers, and certainly not the guy on Reddit telling you this is your ticket to a Lambo.
This reminds me of the dot-com bubble. I was there for that, watching companies with no revenue and no plan suddenly get valued at billions because they had ".com" in their name. Everyone was terrified of missing out on the "new economy." They threw money at anything that sounded vaguely futuristic, and most of them got wiped out. This has the same smell. The fear of missing out is a powerful drug, and the quantum hype machine is dealing it out by the spoonful.
And the whole thing is built on a foundation of intellectual property and patents that are, frankly, impossible for a layperson to evaluate. Is their approach to quantum annealing the right one? Or will a competitor’s gate-based model win out in the end? Are their patents even defensible? You’d need a team of physicists and patent attorneys just to make an educated guess, and even then, you’re just guessing.
Then I get the other question: "But Nate, who else is invested? I heard big names are in it."
Sure, if you look at the early investors in companies like this, you’ll see venture capital firms and maybe some big tech giants. But you have to understand the game they’re playing is completely different from yours. A VC firm invests in, say, 20 different high-risk, moonshot companies. They fully expect 19 of them to go to zero. They need just one of them to become the next Uber or Airbnb to make a massive return on the entire fund. They can afford to lose. Can you?
Their investment isn’t a vote of confidence in next year’s earnings. It’s a bet on a story. It’s a placeholder in a sector they can’t afford to ignore. For a company like Google or IBM, throwing a few hundred million at a quantum startup is a rounding error—it's R&D, a strategic hedge, or an "acqui-hire" to get a team of smart people in the building. It’s not something you should be trying to emulate with your 401(k).
I can just picture the scene: some founder in a hoodie stands in a minimalist, glass-walled conference room, clicking through a slide deck filled with arcane diagrams. He's not selling a product; he's selling a vision to a room of people who are, in turn, planning how to sell that same vision to the public markets later on. They're all playing a game of musical chairs, and when the music stops, you don't want to be the one left holding the bag.
Then again, maybe I’m the idiot. Maybe this time it's different, and we’re all going to be living in a quantum-powered utopia in five years, and I’ll be the cynical schmuck who missed out. But I doubt it. History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme, and this tune sounds awfully familiar.
Look, let's be real. Don't ask if QBTS is a "good stock." It's a speculation on a scientific experiment. A lottery ticket. If you have money you can literally afford to set on fire for the thrill of it, then go nuts. But if you're looking for a sound investment, this ain't it. The entire quantum computing stock landscape is built on hope, hype, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to turn a physics problem into a profitable business. You're better off buying an S&P 500 index fund and taking a nap. At least then you're betting on reality, not on a daydream.
ONON Stock: Unpacking the Future Potential
2025-11-13