Talk:Quantum finance

Too technical?

I've added the 'Technical' tag as I thought this article assumes too much prior knowledge for a general audience. It reads a little like an academic literature review - is this its origin? I wonder whether using more real-world examples, and fleshing out the lede, might make it easier for a general reader to get into the article? Docben (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nearly 15 years later this article remains in the same condition. Blue Raze (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Someone appears to have conflated these pricing computations with some Q Anon "Quantum Financial System" nonsense. The introduction paragraph may now be misleading. I don't have the knowledge to correct the intro paragraph or the ability to restore the previous article. Just wanted to call attention to whoever may be able to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.95.242 (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

QFS is not nonsense regardless of whether it is talked about by certain groups of people, like conspiracy theorists. Blue Raze (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleted section "Instrument pricing"

The section "Instrument pricing" has one reference completely unrelated to "quantum finance", it's just a claim about quantum computing. The rest of the section amounts to "gee if quantum computing works out it would be great for financial computing". It's WP:OR and off topic anyway. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Quantum continuous model

The section on "Quantum continuous model" gives an analysis of the importance and relevance of several authors and their primary sources but provides no basis for verifying that analysis. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The good news is that less than 0.1% of viewers would even try to read it. Blue Raze (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)