I think cryptanalysis as a discipline is not massively funded. All of the cryptography is only as strong as the collective failure of all human intelligence so far to break it.
Most people consider cryptography as a "solved" problem, but I don't think it is. I am sure if enough cryptologists try algorithmic methods and are well compensated for it, they will likely find algorithmic weaknesses (and invent new kinds of mathematics) that can bring down complexity of solving such schemes, even before we have real and functional Shor machines.
I guess massively is the relative word. But I will stand by the claim that we can discover/invent new mathematical methods that can aid in cryptanalysis, if not directly by cryptographers, then by some adjacent field.
Most people consider cryptography as a "solved" problem, but I don't think it is. I am sure if enough cryptologists try algorithmic methods and are well compensated for it, they will likely find algorithmic weaknesses (and invent new kinds of mathematics) that can bring down complexity of solving such schemes, even before we have real and functional Shor machines.