It occurs to me that in year 2000, we had already invented Kerberos, Merkle trees, AES, and McEliece. Kerberos for one is built on symmetric cryptography, and is as far as I'm aware not vulnerable to the sorts of attacks that make RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and EC solve-able by a sufficiently advanced quantum computer.
How do you define your bet such that you don't just win by default?
You could bet in Bitcoin. If the quantum computer doesn't exist, one person gets it. If the quantum computer appears that can break the Bitcoin digital signatures, well, then the Bitcoin is worthless.
For some reason, this reminds me of the ding dong who bet bitcoin would hit a million dollars, immediately lost, then claimed he was the real winner because it proved people were interested in bitcoin.
Problem with long term bets is time value eats away at escrow. But sure, come back in 20 years and we'll settle up at whatever a week's worth of US median salary is. (For specifics, 2000 era crypto is 1024 bit RSA. I'm not betting against a conventional supercomputer factoring such coprimes though.)
This ends up being a bet mostly about medical life extension, since drastically longer human lifespans are more likely than quantum computers going anywhere soon.