---

Discussion

Red Velhouse:

Sam, the United States has supported quantum research for years. What changes when Washington receives shares in companies instead of simply paying for research?

Sam Dewinski:

The government moves from supporting an ecosystem to acquiring a position inside it. Since the National Quantum Initiative was established in 2018, federal policy has emphasized laboratories, universities, workforce development and coordination. The CHIPS and Science Act expanded that framework toward semiconductor capacity and technology infrastructure. These agreements go another step: public money is tied to domestic production, milestones, intellectual-property rights and ownership. That looks more like investment-oriented industrial policy than a conventional research grant.

Kate Burvish:

And that ownership changes the economics. A conventional grant is mostly a one-way transfer, subject to conditions. Here, taxpayers may share in the upside if a company succeeds. But they also share in the downside. Quantum hardware is capital-intensive and technically immature, so the government is exposed to commercial failure, changing valuations and dilution. Receiving shares does not make the public investment risk-free.

Ann Tofado:

That distinction also gives officials a political argument: taxpayers are not merely subsidizing private firms; they may share in the gains. But ownership creates questions that a normal grant does not. Who decides when to sell? How are the stakes valued? Does Commerce exercise any influence? The government can avoid operational control while still becoming a politically visible shareholder.

Red Velhouse:

Let’s make the structure concrete. These were first announced as proposed awards in May and finalized on September 8. What should viewers avoid assuming from the headline figure of $100 million per company?

Kate Burvish:

The three awards total up to $300 million, but that is a ceiling, not an immediate check. D-Wave’s agreement starts with an initial tranche of about $53.55 million, followed by additional payments tied to milestones and eligible costs. The broader agreements also depend on continued federal funding and compliance. So the headline amount describes the potential scale of the projects, not money automatically available on day one.

Red Velhouse:

And the projects are not identical. Kate, describe the practical bottlenecks; then, Sam, explain why that matters historically.

Kate Burvish:

D-Wave’s award supports fabrication, packaging, process integration and testing for superconducting annealing and gate-model systems. Rigetti is working on miniaturized readout electronics, more cryogenic capacity and fabrication for highly connected chips. Quantinuum is focused on trapped-ion systems, integrated photonics and semiconductor manufacturing, with GlobalFoundries involved in 300-millimeter wafer fabrication and another partner working on lasers and optical components. Those details point to the less glamorous bottlenecks—control systems, cooling, packaging, yields and supply chains—that determine whether laboratory systems can become scalable products.

Sam Dewinski:

That is the historical significance. Technology policy is often narrated as a contest over the final product, but state capacity is frequently built in the supporting infrastructure. This portfolio covers superconducting, annealing, trapped-ion, photonic, neutral-atom and silicon-spin approaches. The government is not declaring that one design has won; it is trying to keep manufacturing and scientific options open while the technology remains unsettled.

Ann Tofado:

But keeping options open creates a political tradeoff. Diversification reduces the embarrassment of choosing the wrong architecture, yet it can also make failure harder to define. If no firm produces a commercially transformative machine, officials can point to supply-chain improvements or technical learning. Those may be real benefits, but without clear measures, a portfolio can diffuse responsibility.

Red Velhouse:

So we have a possible market failure on one side and a possible accountability failure on the other. Kate, is public capital filling a gap that private investors will not fill—or selecting favored companies before the winners are known?

Kate Burvish:

Both possibilities are credible. Private investors may underfund shared capabilities such as specialized fabrication, photonics or cryogenic equipment because the payoff is distant and uncertain. Public support can coordinate those investments and create spillovers for suppliers and skilled workers, even if one architecture fails. But government capital can also crowd out private financing, advantage recipients over competitors and preserve firms with weak commercial prospects. The evidence supports a risk-sharing rationale; it does not prove the program will deliver superior returns.

Ann Tofado:

And the national-security framing makes intervention easier to defend. Quantum computing is linked to economic security and strategic technology, so officials face a political cost if they appear passive while other countries build capacity. But urgency can weaken scrutiny. The Government Accountability Office has criticized weaknesses in federal coordination and measurement. That means the challenge is not only whether the technology works; it is whether institutions can judge the program fairly.

Red Velhouse:

Sam, that brings us to the historical comparison. Does this resemble semiconductor policy, wartime mobilization or government-backed aerospace—and where does the analogy break down?

Sam Dewinski:

The semiconductor comparison helps because quantum hardware depends on fabrication, packaging, specialized labor and reliable domestic suppliers. The CHIPS and Science Act joined manufacturing incentives with expanded science and technology programs. But quantum is not a mature industry waiting for factories to scale. Technical paths are competing, commercial uses remain uncertain, and none of these awards demonstrates fault-tolerant, transformative computing. This is better understood as a state-backed effort to build capabilities under uncertainty, not as a repeat of an established industrial success.

Kate Burvish:

That is why the measurement question matters. Counting qubits alone could reward impressive but impractical systems. Commerce should distinguish error rates, logical-qubit performance, manufacturing yield, domestic supplier development and reproducibility from commercial claims. Revenue and customers matter too, but they may arrive later than the engineering milestones.

Red Velhouse:

Let’s apply that discipline to the ownership itself. Rigetti says the government will receive common stock and warns of dilution. D-Wave’s filing specifies more than seven million shares at a calculated price with a discount. Is taxpayer upside being created partly by existing investors giving up value?

Kate Burvish:

Potentially, although the full effect depends on the terms and future valuations. Equity financing can reduce a company’s need to raise private capital, which may help the firm and its long-run shareholders. But issuing shares dilutes existing holders, and a government stake may look attractive or unattractive in retrospect. The important point is that the subsidy is not economically invisible. It changes the companies’ capitalization and redistributes risk among taxpayers, current investors and future investors.

Sam Dewinski:

There is also a difference between ownership and management. The filings indicate limited voting rights while the shares are government-held, along with restrictions and exceptions. So this is not a state takeover. Historically, the more defensible public investments tend to have a defined public purpose and an accountability or exit mechanism. The public purpose is visible here, but the eventual disposition of the shares is less clear.

Ann Tofado:

And that lack of clarity becomes more important when domestic-control conditions are involved. The policy wants production and strategic capacity in the United States, but advanced science and supply chains are international. Conditions that are too restrictive could raise costs or limit collaboration; conditions that are too loose could finance companies without securing the resilience used to justify the investment. Commerce therefore needs to explain not just what it owns, but what public purpose the ownership is meant to serve.

Red Velhouse:

The three agreements are also only one part of the portfolio. The May plan involved nine companies and roughly $2.013 billion in planned federal support, and GlobalFoundries and PsiQuantum announced definitive awards on September 8. Does that broader scale make the strategy more credible—or make the accountability problem larger?

Kate Burvish:

It makes the potential spillovers more credible because the program connects chip fabrication, photonics, cryogenics and quantum hardware. But it also raises the opportunity cost. Roughly two billion dollars planned across a young industry is not merely a symbolic experiment. The public should be able to see which projects are meeting milestones, which are delayed and whether support is building capabilities that other firms can use rather than simply propping up individual companies.

Ann Tofado:

Politically, the portfolio can be defended as diversification rather than favoritism toward one architecture. Still, coordination is crucial. The effort has to connect with the National Quantum Initiative, Department of Energy programs, defense research and allied-country partnerships. The Government Accountability Office’s concern about unclear agency roles becomes more important as the number of awards grows. A larger portfolio without a clear national strategy could produce more announcements than measurable progress.

Red Velhouse:

Let’s end with a test viewers can use. Five years from now, what would count as success—and what would count as failure?

Sam Dewinski:

Success would not require one company to dominate. It would mean the United States has built durable manufacturing and research capacity, trained workers and learned enough to narrow the field of viable architectures. Failure would be treating announced targets—such as very large qubit systems—as achievements before they are independently demonstrated and useful.

Kate Burvish:

I would look for reproducible technical performance, improving manufacturing yields, private capital attracted rather than displaced, and suppliers that remain useful beyond a single award. Commercial revenue matters, but it should not be the only test. Failure would be large public spending with no measurable technical progress, no domestic capability and no credible explanation of why milestones were missed.

Ann Tofado:

Politically, success means transparent terms, disciplined selection and an oversight or exit policy for the government’s holdings. Failure would be opaque ownership, shifting standards and a program defended mainly through national-security rhetoric. The question is not whether government should ever invest. It is whether institutions can show that investment is serving a public strategy rather than becoming an entitlement for favored firms.

Red Velhouse:

The unresolved issue is whether these equity-backed awards are a smart way to build strategic capability—or a grant program carrying the extra risks of ownership, dilution and uncertain valuation. Watch for the next definitive awards from the larger portfolio, the release of share and ownership terms, milestone payments, technical demonstrations, supplier investments and clearer federal metrics for success. Sources and references for this discussion are available with the episode at Factolio.com.

---

Sources and References

These sources supported the factual material used in this discussion. Factolio’s panel discussion is AI-generated from researched evidence and is written in original language.

1. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce — Department of Commerce Announces Finalization of CHIPS R&D Award with D-Wave (PRIMARY)
2. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce — Department of Commerce Announces Finalization of CHIPS R&D Award with Rigetti (PRIMARY)
3. Quantinuum — Quantinuum Finalizes $100 Million CHIPS R&D Award with U.S. Department of Commerce (PRIMARY)
4. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce — Department of Commerce Announces Letters of Intent With 9 Companies for $2 Billion to Accelerate U.S. Leadership in Quantum Computing (PRIMARY)
5. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce — Department of Commerce Announces Letters of Intent With 9 Companies (PRIMARY)
6. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; D-Wave Quantum — D-Wave Quantum Form 8-K, CHIPS and Science Act Award Agreement (PRIMARY)
7. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Rigetti Computing — Rigetti Computing Form 8-K, Definitive CHIPS Award and Securities Issuance (PRIMARY)
8. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Rigetti Computing — Rigetti Computing Securities Issuance Agreement with the Department of Commerce (PRIMARY)
9. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Quantinuum — Quantinuum Form 8-K Filing for September 8, 2026 (PRIMARY)
10. Reuters — U.S. award of $2 billion to quantum computing firms to take equity stakes, WSJ reports (NEWS)
11. GlobalFoundries — GlobalFoundries and U.S. Department of Commerce Finalize $375M R&D Award to Advance American Quantum Leadership (PRIMARY)
12. PsiQuantum — PsiQuantum Finalizes $100 Million Award with the U.S. Department of Commerce (PRIMARY)
13. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce — CRDO Broad Agency Announcement (PRIMARY)
14. U.S. Government Accountability Office — Quantum Computing: Updating the National Strategy Could Promote U.S. Leadership (PRIMARY)
15. National Quantum Initiative — The National Quantum Initiative (PRIMARY)
16. National Quantum Initiative — Quantum in the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (PRIMARY)
17. Congressional Research Service, Congress.gov — H.R.4346 — CHIPS and Science Act (PRIMARY)