Quantus

The crypto industry is on a collision course with quantum computing. We just published a report on where it stands, what it does to crypto, and what the industry is and isn't doing. Introducing 👇 "The State of Quantum: What Crypto Can't Afford to Ignore" A thank you to our co-collaborators, @NEARProtocol @near_intents @quipnetwork @cadillion @midnightfdn @SebastienGllmt @KeystoneWallet @gnosisguild @auryn_macmillan @terminal3io @SwaynesWord @tx_track Link here 👇 report.quantus.com

The proof system a chain runs decides whether it's quantum-safe. Quantus runs recursive STARKs. Hash-based proofs, no pairings. Quantum-resistant by construction.

The post-quantum upgrade requires reviewing the full stack. NIST’s standards make this clear by dual-standardizing: • FIPS 204 for lattice-based signatures (ML-DSA) • FIPS 205 for hash-based signatures (SLH-DSA). If any layer of infrastructure is pre-quantum, the whole thing is vulnerable.

ZK does not automatically mean quantum-secure. For chains that use ZK for scaling, privacy, or data verification, the proof system matters too. A proof can hide data and still rely on pre-quantum cryptography. Privacy and post-quantum security are not the same property.

AI has now doubled the performance of Google’s “secret” quantum circuit. 823 qubits 1.3m gates Elliptic curves will not last forever. ecdsa.fail

@nic_carter Prompting our way to eternal freedom money We still need the cracked engineers but working on uploading their brains into one giant AGENTS.MD file

Most people’s jobs are prompt engineering nowadays it’s just called being a lawyer or an accountant or SWE

When does the first confirmed quantum theft of crypto happen?

Bitcoin failed as peer to peer electronic cash. Because it never scaled. Even worse news: post-quantum signatures are bigger than the ones they replace. Signature and public key together can push a transaction's onchain data to ~ 7,200 bytes. If every blockchain just bolted PQC on as-is, throughput would drop. Quantus avoids that problem with ZK proofs. Many transactions combine into a single proof, which is verifiable onchain. Post-quantum, without the throughput penalty.

Two years ago this was a thought experiment. Now it is a roadmap item on every serious chain. The question is no longer whether. It is how fast, and who moves together.

"Every blockchain needs to upgrade." Nearly all of them are secured by elliptic-curve signatures, which a powerful enough quantum computer can break by running Shor's algorithm. It's the whole industry’s problem. Planning the upgrade is the easy part. After that comes the migration.

@itsolelehmann Bitcoin needs to adopt PQC Vulnerabilities (both classical and quantum) can exist in new signature schemes So the standards need to be hardened and vulnerabilities responsibly disclosed Blockchain industry seems to be converging on ML-DSA-65 x.com/YuviLightman/s…

Last week in quantum. IBM bought into a second way of building qubits. IBM agreed to acquire HRL Laboratories, which builds qubits out of silicon. IBM's own machines run on superconducting qubits, so the acquisition buys it a stake in a competing design. DARPA is auditing @PsiQuantum's roadmap. PsiQuantum signed a $125 million agreement under DARPA's Quantum Benchmarking Initiative, the program set up to test whether a design can scale into a machine that does useful work. Two companies are left in the final stage. @NEARProtocol added post-quantum signatures on mainnet. The 2.13 upgrade added support for ML-DSA-65, a post-quantum signature scheme NIST standardized. Existing accounts still have to switch over. The hardware is still being built. The defence is already shipping.

@AnthropicAI HAWK is a candidate, not yet a standard. This is the NIST process working as designed. Bitcoin will need to adopt PQC. Every signature scheme will get deprecated eventually as new capabilities arise.

New Anthropic research: Discovering cryptographic weaknesses with Claude. Claude Mythos Preview has helped our researchers find weaknesses in cryptographic algorithms—the mathematical methods that are used to keep data private. Read more: anthropic.com/research/disco…

Good to see another L1 put a real post-quantum path in writing. A cutoff rather than an indefinite opt-in is the harder call, and the more serious one. As proposed, it covers user account keys, with validators, bridges and oracles outside this first scope. The spec is also honest that post-quantum signatures cost throughput, and that a throughput-preserving answer is still open research. Looking forward to seeing how that gets solved.

Introducing SIP-5: a post-quantum upgrade path for Sei. SIP-5 is ready today, so that if a quantum threat emerges, every account has a route to quantum-safe security. Meanwhile, Sei Labs is also building higher-performance cryptography that will replace it.

Bitcoin solved fair money. It never solved privacy. And its cryptography has an expiration date. Quantus starts where that leaves off. Our team on why we're building it.