Yellow canary bird in a futuristic cyberpunk city with glowing blue holographic quantum technology interface in the background.

Is Your Blockchain Quantum-Ready?

Quantum computing risk is not tomorrow's problem anymore. With NIST's first production PQC standards now approved, the migration path is getting clearer while timelines feel tighter than before. Organizations are already being told to begin the shift to post-quantum cryptography (PQC), and that turns the concept of quantum secure cryptocurrency from a branding phrase into an implementation test.

Investors and developers need a plain-English way to compare quantum-ready blockchains, so we've compiled a reference table that does just that. Below, you'll find every major blockchain that claims to support post-quantum cryptography, along with their actual implementations, signature choices, and standardization status. This is not marketing copy—it's a technical assessment designed to help you separate the signal from the noise.

The focus here is on signature schemes because they're the most immediate quantum vulnerability for most blockchains. While other cryptographic components (like key exchange and hashing) will also need quantum-resistant upgrades, digital signatures handle transaction authorization and are where quantum attacks will likely hit first and hardest.

A Project-by-Project Comparison of Quantum-Ready Blockchains

Compare post-quantum readiness across blockchain networks

Quantus Network

QUANTestnet
A+

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Dilithium-5(Level 5)

Cellframe Network

CELLMainnet
A+

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Dilithium-5(Level 5)

Quantum Resistant Ledger

QRLMainnet
A

GitHub Repository

https://github.com/theqrl

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

XMSS(Level 5)

XX Network

XXMainnet
A

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

WOTS+(Level 5)

Abelian

ABELMainnet
A

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Dilithium-3(Level 3)

Nexus

NXSMainnet
B

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Falcon-512(Level 1)

QANplatform

QANXMainnet
B

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Dilithium-5(Level 5)

Mochimo

MCMMainnet
B

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

WOTS+(Level 5)

IOTA

IOTAMainnet
B

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Dilithium-5(Level 5)

Starknet

STRKMainnet
C

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

ECDSA(Level 1)

Zcash

ZECMainnet
C

GitHub Repository

https://github.com/zcash

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

ECDSA(Level 1)

Algorand

ALGOMainnet
C

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Falcon-1024(Level 5)

Bitcoin

BTCMainnet
D

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Schnorr(Level 1)

Hedera

HBARMainnet
D

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Ed25519(Level 1)

Ethereum

ETHMainnet
F

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

ECDSA(Level 1)

Solana

SOLMainnet
F

Post-Quantum Capabilities

Signature Schemes (1)

Ed25519(Level 1)

The cards above surface the signature choice, standard, claimed NIST level, and approximate sizes that affect fees and throughput. Use this information to sanity-check roadmaps and to filter the signal from the noise.

Important Notes & Considerations

📋 NIST Standards Status

NIST has finalized two standards for signature schemes so far, with a third expected soon:

FIPS 204 (ML-DSA): Finalized August 2024
FIPS 205 (SLH-DSA): Finalized August 2024
FIPS 206 (Falcon): Expected 2025 (draft status)

The comparison grades reflect implementation maturity, standards alignment, and documentation clarity.

📊 Size & Performance Impact

Public key and signature sizes are averages by parameter set and matter because they inflate transaction payloads. That affects fees and throughput. The NIST levels give you an apples-to-apples security yardstick to compare different signature schemes.

ECDSA signatures:~64 bytes
ML-DSA signatures:~3,000+ bytes
WOTS+ signatures:~2,100+ bytes

⚠️ Zero-Knowledge Cryptography Caveat

Important: Some systems like Zcash are marked as having "Post-Quantum ZK" capabilities, but this requires clarification.

While Zcash uses advanced zero-knowledge proofs (zk-SNARKs), the underlying cryptographic primitives still rely on elliptic curves, which are vulnerable to quantum attacks. True post-quantum ZK requires hashed-based or other quantum-resistant foundations, like the zk-STARKS used in StarkNet.

Always verify that ZK implementations use post-quantum cryptographic primitives, not just post-quantum-compatible proof systems.

🔒 The Four Critical Attack Vectors

The PQC capabilities checkboxes tell you exactly which of the four critical attack vectors each implementation addresses:

🚀 Migration Reality

A large portion of quantum disruption damage can be reduced with just secure transaction signatures. However, P2P, consensus, and ZK components are vulnerabilities that sometimes require fundamental architectural changes.

Blockchains like Bitcoin that inherited cryptographic choices from an era when quantum computers were pure science fiction have more security gaps than chains designed with quantum resistance from the beginning.

Practical Guidance for Blockchain Security Assessment

🔍 Due Diligence Checklist

Verify PQC implementation is in production, not just testnet
Validate that parameter sets match published specifications
Look for independent security audits of PQC implementation

📅 Standards Timeline

FIPS 204 (ML-DSA): Finalized August 2024
FIPS 205 (SLH-DSA): Finalized August 2024
FIPS 206 (Falcon): Expected 2026 (draft status)
Migration Deadline: Many organizations targeting 2030 for full quantum-ready adoption

🚨 Red Flags to Watch

Vague Claims: "Quantum-resistant" without specific implementation details
Non-Standard Schemes: Using proprietary or unspecified algorithms
Incomplete Coverage: Only securing signatures but ignoring P2P/consensus
No Timelines: Roadmaps without concrete delivery dates

💡 Key Takeaway

The comparison above shows real implementations, not marketing promises. Focus on projects that provide specific technical details, use NIST-approved algorithms, and have clear migration timelines. Remember that quantum resistance is not binary—it's about comprehensive coverage across all cryptographic components.

Need help evaluating your blockchain's quantum readiness?

quantum canary's logo

Sponsored by: