Tanaka(@Tanaka_L2):➥ My quantum-resistant token wishlist I’m spending more time on this sector because the migration is already happening. Google targets 2029 for post-quantum readiness, with Google Cloud publishing a detailed migration roadmap in August. That’s a deadline to prepare infra, not a prediction that Bitcoin gets broken in 2029. I believe wallets, custodians and institutions will need to evaluate quantum exposure before a capable quantum computer arrives. But I’m checking what actually protects user funds: native signatures, optional account upgrades, or unfinished implementations. Here’s my wishlist: → base:0x37696cd8f723ce541ac376f79fc109080e505ba3 - the operating history I want to study. Native transactions have used hash-based XMSS signatures since 2018. Next checkpoint is Zond: whether its post-quantum smart-contract stack can attract developers beyond the security thesis. → $QTC - the newer implementation I’m following closely. @QuantusNetwork native ML-DSA transaction signing. I want to see sustained usage, accessible liquidity and demand that can absorb mining emissions. → $CKB - cryptographic flexibility interests me. Its SPHINCS+ Lock Script and Quantum Purse let users adopt post-quantum protection today. It’s optional, so wallet adoption matters as much as protocol capability. → algorand:native - a concrete migration path on an established chain. Native Falcon-1024 accounts are supported. I’m watching wallet and app compatibility. → $NEAR - migration without changing the account address. ML-DSA-65 signing went live in July. Fireblocks demonstrated rotating a funded account in 2 transactions, then receiving and sending funds with the new key. That’s the kind of practical integration I care about. → abelian:native - privacy and post-quantum security together. @PQabelian uses lattice-based cryptography for private transactions. I want to understand whether that translates into recurring payment demand and stronger liquidity. → $CELL - the ability to change algorithms over time. @cellframenet supports multiple post-quantum signature schemes. I’m watching adoption of its native infra, while checking which chain and token representation users actually hold. → $STRK - promising architecture, with dependencies. Hash-based STARK proofs and working Falcon account implementations give Starknet a migration path. Those account implementations remain early-stage, and full protection still depends on Ethereum’s transition. I’m also tracking $ZEC’s quantum-recoverability work. It supports a future migration; it doesn’t make current Zcash fully quantum-resistant. Where I expect growth: → wallets that make key migration usable. → custody systems that can support new signatures. → infra that handles their higher verification costs. → networks that turn those capabilities into retained users and fees. Existing chains can upgrade too, so post-quantum cryptography alone won’t guarantee token demand.

2026.10.26 07:10

➥ My quantum-resistant token wishlist I’m spending more time on this sector because the migration is already happening. Google targets 2029 for post-quantum readiness, with Google Cloud publishing a detailed migration roadmap in August. That’s a deadline to prepare infra, not a prediction that Bitcoin gets broken in 2029. I believe wallets, custodians and institutions will need to evaluate quantum exposure before a capable quantum computer arrives. But I’m checking what actually protects user funds: native signatures, optional account upgrades, or unfinished implementations. Here’s my wishlist: → base:0x37696cd8f723ce541ac376f79fc109080e505ba3 - the operating history I want to study. Native transactions have used hash-based XMSS signatures since 2018. Next checkpoint is Zond: whether its post-quantum smart-contract stack can attract developers beyond the security thesis. → $QTC - the newer implementation I’m following closely. @QuantusNetwork native ML-DSA transaction signing. I want to see sustained usage, accessible liquidity and demand that can absorb mining emissions. → $CKB - cryptographic flexibility interests me. Its SPHINCS+ Lock Script and Quantum Purse let users adopt post-quantum protection today. It’s optional, so wallet adoption matters as much as protocol capability. → algorand:native - a concrete migration path on an established chain. Native Falcon-1024 accounts are supported. I’m watching wallet and app compatibility. → $NEAR - migration without changing the account address. ML-DSA-65 signing went live in July. Fireblocks demonstrated rotating a funded account in 2 transactions, then receiving and sending funds with the new key. That’s the kind of practical integration I care about. → abelian:native - privacy and post-quantum security together. @PQabelian uses lattice-based cryptography for private transactions. I want to understand whether that translates into recurring payment demand and stronger liquidity. → $CELL - the ability to change algorithms over time. @cellframenet supports multiple post-quantum signature schemes. I’m watching adoption of its native infra, while checking which chain and token representation users actually hold. → $STRK - promising architecture, with dependencies. Hash-based STARK proofs and working Falcon account implementations give Starknet a migration path. Those account implementations remain early-stage, and full protection still depends on Ethereum’s transition. I’m also tracking $ZEC’s quantum-recoverability work. It supports a future migration; it doesn’t make current Zcash fully quantum-resistant. Where I expect growth: → wallets that make key migration usable. → custody systems that can support new signatures. → infra that handles their higher verification costs. → networks that turn those capabilities into retained users and fees. Existing chains can upgrade too, so post-quantum cryptography alone won’t guarantee token demand.