Quantus has released a new research report warning that advances in quantum computing are accelerating faster than the cryptocurrency industry’s preparations for post-quantum security, potentially creating long-term risks for blockchain networks, digital assets and critical infrastructure across the sector.
The report, titled “The State of Quantum: What Crypto Can’t Afford to Ignore,” argues that the crypto industry is entering a period where the timeline for quantum-related cryptographic threats is compressing while migration efforts remain fragmented and slow.
According to the report, recent improvements in quantum error correction, gate fidelity and cryptanalytic resource estimates have significantly reduced assumptions about the scale of hardware required to break classical public-key cryptography systems widely used across blockchain networks.
Most major blockchain ecosystems, including Bitcoin and Ethereum-compatible chains, continue to rely on elliptic-curve cryptography standards such as ECDSA and Ed25519. These systems are theoretically vulnerable to Shor’s algorithm once sufficiently advanced quantum hardware becomes available.
Unlike traditional internet infrastructure, which can often rotate cryptographic standards through centralized software updates, blockchains face structural constraints due to decentralized governance, self-custodied assets and permanently exposed public-key data onchain.
“Crypto does not get a clean warning bell before Q-Day,” said Christopher Smith. “If the industry waits until the threat is obvious, users will be asked to move value under pressure. The safer path is to build and migrate before that pressure arrives.”
Permanent Onchain Exposure Creates Long-Term Risks
The report highlights that public keys exposed onchain remain permanently visible, creating an enduring attack surface for quantum-capable adversaries in the future.
Older wallets that reused addresses or relied on legacy transaction formats may face elevated risks because exposed key material cannot be hidden retroactively once quantum systems become capable of attacking classical signatures.
The report also argues that migration challenges in crypto extend beyond individual users.
Stablecoin administrator keys, bridge validators, oracle systems, multisig treasury structures, governance contracts and institutional custody systems all rely heavily on classical cryptographic signatures. A successful compromise involving these control points could impact lending protocols, cross-chain liquidity infrastructure, automated market makers and derivatives markets simultaneously.
Scaling Post-Quantum Security Remains a Major Challenge
One of the report’s central findings focuses on the scalability burden associated with post-quantum cryptography.
According to Quantus, a standard Bitcoin transaction using ECDSA signatures typically requires approximately 97 bytes for signature and public-key data. A comparable transaction using the post-quantum ML-DSA-87 signature scheme would require approximately 7,187 bytes.
That represents a roughly 74-fold increase in transaction size.
The report argues that such expansion could significantly reduce transaction throughput on legacy blockchain networks without major architectural modifications.
Current proposals attempting to address this issue remain incomplete.
The report references BIP 360, a proposal introducing a post-quantum Bitcoin address format as one possible migration pathway. However, Quantus argues that larger transaction payloads would place additional strain on block space while hardware wallets and broader infrastructure still lack adequate support for post-quantum standards.
“No single proposal resolves all three,” the report states, referring to scalability, wallet compatibility and unmigrated coin exposure.
Zero-Knowledge Systems Face Their Own Quantum Divide
The report also examines the implications of quantum computing for zero-knowledge proof systems increasingly used across scaling and privacy-focused blockchain applications.
According to Quantus, not all zero-knowledge architectures are expected to survive the transition into a quantum era.
Elliptic-curve-based systems such as Groth16, Bulletproofs and certain implementations of PLONK with KZG commitments are described as quantum-vulnerable due to their reliance on classical cryptographic assumptions.
By contrast, hash-based proof systems including STARKs and FRI constructions are viewed as more resilient against future quantum attacks.
Quantus said its own architecture was designed around that assumption from inception.
The company’s whitepaper describes a system using Plonky2, STARK-style proof aggregation and Poseidon2 hashing to move verification overhead offchain while reducing the storage impact associated with larger post-quantum signatures.
The company argues that scalability remains one of the core bottlenecks preventing broad post-quantum adoption across existing blockchain ecosystems.
“Great Quantum Filter” Could Trigger Capital Migration
Quantus describes the industry’s eventual transition period as the “Great Quantum Filter,” referring to a scenario in which capital begins migrating from quantum-vulnerable chains toward quantum-secure alternatives.
The report argues that legacy networks face several operational challenges simultaneously:
- Upgrading signature algorithms
- Migrating wallets
- Coordinating exchange support
- Passing governance proposals
- Educating users
- Managing inaccessible or unmigrated coins
All while operating against an uncertain deadline.
By contrast, quantum-native chains built with post-quantum cryptography from inception may avoid much of that migration burden.
Quantus said its network launched using ML-DSA-87 signatures alongside networking systems built around ML-KEM encryption and post-quantum authentication standards.
The project also stated that its architecture avoids exposing public keys directly onchain while supporting larger cryptographic payloads from launch.
Post-Quantum Standards Are Already Moving Into Mainstream Tech
The report arrives as broader technology companies increasingly begin implementing post-quantum standards into consumer infrastructure.
National Institute of Standards and Technology finalized its first post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024, selecting algorithms intended to replace vulnerable classical systems over time.
Major technology platforms including Signal, Chrome and iMessage have already begun integrating elements of post-quantum cryptographic protection into portions of their systems.
The report argues that the cryptocurrency industry has access to the same standards but has made comparatively little progress in implementation.
Wallet providers, exchanges and custodians remain in the early stages of evaluating migration pathways, while most blockchain governance discussions around post-quantum upgrades remain largely theoretical.
Quantus warned that delayed preparation could eventually force the industry into emergency migrations under market stress rather than controlled upgrades coordinated over longer time horizons.
Analysis: Crypto Still Treats Quantum Computing Like a 2035 Problem — That’s the Dangerous Part
The biggest misconception in crypto right now isn’t about price.
It’s about time.
People still talk about quantum computing like it’s some distant sci-fi event sitting safely 15 years away. Something for academics and IBM demos. Something future devs will “eventually” deal with.
I don’t buy that anymore.
Not after the last 18 months.
Because when you strip away the hype and actually look at what’s happening — error correction improving, hardware stabilizing, NIST standards finalized, Big Tech quietly integrating post-quantum systems — the trajectory starts looking uncomfortable fast.
And crypto? Still mostly pretending this is somebody else’s problem.
The Industry Keeps Framing Q-Day Wrong
Everybody loves the dramatic scenario.
“One day quantum computers wake up and crack Bitcoin.”
That’s Hollywood thinking.
The real danger is slower and uglier.
It’s gradual realization.
Markets pricing in vulnerability before the attack even happens.
Because once large holders believe a chain may eventually become cryptographically exposed, incentives change immediately.
You don’t wait for the vault door to explode before leaving the building.
You leave when you think the lock is weakening.
That’s why the “Great Quantum Filter” idea in the report actually matters. Not because it sounds cool. Because it maps to real market behavior.
Capital moves early.
Sometimes irrationally early.
Bitcoin Has a Massive Visibility Problem
This is the part most retail traders don’t understand.
Bitcoin’s public-key exposure is permanent.
Forever.
Every reused address. Every old wallet. Every public key already sitting onchain becomes future attack surface if quantum capability reaches the threshold needed for Shor’s algorithm.
And unlike banks, crypto doesn’t have centralized rollback mechanisms.
There’s no fraud hotline for compromised seed phrases.
No emergency reversal desk.
If dormant wallets become vulnerable, the market implications get weird very quickly.
Especially when you remember how many early-era coins are sitting untouched.
The Signature Size Problem Is Brutal
This section of the report jumped out immediately.
ECDSA transaction:
~97 bytes.
ML-DSA-87 version:
~7,187 bytes.
That’s insane.
A 74x expansion completely changes blockchain economics.
People love saying:
“Just upgrade to post-quantum cryptography.”
Okay. With what throughput?
Because blockchains are already fighting over scalability trade-offs before adding gigantic signatures into every transaction.
And this is where most “quantum-ready” conversations fall apart. The cryptography itself isn’t the only problem.
The infrastructure burden is.
Storage.
Bandwidth.
Validator requirements.
Wallet support.
Hardware compatibility.
Everything compounds.
This Creates a New Blockchain Trilemma
We already had the classic trilemma:
Security.
Scalability.
Decentralization.
Quantum computing adds another layer of pain.
Now chains need:
- Post-quantum security
- Scalability under heavier cryptographic loads
- Privacy systems that also survive quantum attacks
Good luck.
Because a lot of current ZK infrastructure suddenly looks shaky under quantum assumptions.
Groth16?
Potentially exposed.
Bulletproofs?
Problematic.
Certain PLONK implementations?
Same issue.
And this matters more than people realize because crypto spent the last three years aggressively moving toward ZK-heavy architectures.
Now the industry has to ask whether some of those systems age badly in a quantum world.
That’s not a comfortable conversation.
Big Tech Is Moving Faster Than Crypto
This is honestly the most embarrassing part.
Signal is moving.
Chrome is moving.
Apple is moving.
Meanwhile large parts of crypto are still arguing about meme coin launchpads and governance emissions.
The standards already exist.
National Institute of Standards and Technology finalized them in 2024.
So this isn’t theoretical anymore.
The migration phase already started outside crypto.
Inside crypto, most infrastructure players are still in the “researching implications” phase.
That gap matters.
Wallets Are the Weak Link Nobody Talks About Enough
Everyone focuses on chains.
I think wallets become the real nightmare.
Because even if a blockchain upgrades successfully, users still need to migrate safely.
And crypto users are terrible at migrations.
We’ve already seen chaos during simple token swaps and chain upgrades. Now imagine trying to coordinate post-quantum wallet migration across millions of users globally — including dormant wallets, lost seed phrases and abandoned holdings.
It gets messy fast.
Some coins simply never move.
Which means they remain exposed forever.
The Market Impact Could Arrive Before the Technology Does
This is the part my gut keeps coming back to.
The psychological threshold probably matters more than the technical threshold.
The second institutional players believe quantum risk is no longer distant, capital allocation changes immediately.
Custodians start adjusting policies.
Funds change exposure models.
Treasuries diversify chains.
Stablecoin issuers rethink infrastructure dependencies.
The repricing starts before the first real-world quantum breach.
That’s how markets behave.
Quantum-Native Chains Suddenly Have a Narrative
Most “next-gen blockchain” narratives fade eventually.
AI chains.
Gaming chains.
Social chains.
But quantum security feels different because it’s tied directly to survivability.
That gives projects like Quantus a much stronger long-term positioning argument than the average Layer 1 pitch deck.
Whether they execute is another question entirely.
But at least they’re solving a problem that actually matters.
What I Think the Industry Gets Wrong
Crypto assumes migration will happen rationally.
It won’t.
It’ll happen under stress.
That’s how this industry operates. Always has.
People delay hard infrastructure work until panic forces movement.
Same pattern every cycle.
Security gets ignored during euphoria.
Then suddenly becomes urgent after disaster.
Quantum migration probably follows the same script.
And if that happens, the chains already built around post-quantum assumptions gain a massive timing advantage.
Not because their tech is perfect.
Because everyone else is late.