Blockchain groups move to define quantum readiness as Starknet weighs leaving Ethereum

In plain words

Most blockchains protect coins with a kind of digital signature that a large enough quantum computer could, in theory, break. No machine can do that today. This week blockchain groups began preparing. Nine organisations launched the Quantum Alliance to agree what "quantum-ready" should mean and how to test it, and the Starknet network opened a vote on whether to explore leaving Ethereum to build its own quantum-resistant network. These are preparations. They are not a sign that an attack is close.

What happened

According to a press release published by The Quantum Insider, nine blockchain organisations launched the Quantum Alliance, an open standards body that will set the criteria for judging quantum-resistance claims in blockchain and create standards for compatibility between networks as they migrate. Its first work covers a public definition of quantum readiness, open test criteria and reference designs for migration.

The release explains the risk. Nearly every major blockchain secures accounts with elliptic-curve signatures, and once an account signs a transaction its public key sits permanently on a public ledger. A sufficiently capable quantum computer running Shor's algorithm could work backward from that key to the private key. The release cites forecasts that place a first practical attack around 2028 to 2029, and says 6.04 million BTC, 30.2% of supply, count as quantum-exposed at rest.

Cointelegraph reports that on Thursday Starknet opened a seven-day, non-binding vote on whether to explore becoming an independent post-quantum layer-1 blockchain. Voting closes on 22 October. StarkWare, the developer, says the move would let the network pursue quantum resistance without waiting for Ethereum's upgrade schedule. In March, Ethereum developers set up a dedicated post-quantum team aiming for initial protocol-level protections by 2029.

What is confirmed and what is not

The Alliance announcement is a press release, so its membership, aims and figures are the Alliance's own. The forecasts it cites come from named individuals and models and differ from one another. The release itself says no existing machine can do this yet. Cointelegraph's account of the Starknet vote includes quotes from StarkWare, which has an interest in the outcome.

The vote is non-binding. A Yes vote would signal support for further research, not authorize a transition, and no timetable has been announced.

Not known: when, or whether, a machine able to break these signatures will exist, and whether major networks such as Bitcoin and Ethereum will adopt the Alliance's standards.

Analysis

Security. The risk is slow-moving but has a hard edge, because keys already exposed on a ledger cannot be hidden again. The release says no single party can order a live blockchain to adopt the post-quantum standards finalized in August 2024. Migration is therefore a coordination problem, and a shared definition of readiness would give exchanges, custodians and developers one yardstick for comparing claims. A standards body cannot force adoption, so its effect depends on which major networks sign on.

Technology. Starknet's vote shows a trade-off. Moving faster than Ethereum's roadmap could make it quantum-resistant sooner, but Cointelegraph reports that StarkWare names Ethereum's bridge and data availability as remaining quantum-security dependencies. Leaving would mean replacing that infrastructure. The release also notes that post-quantum signatures produce larger transactions, which could affect fees and capacity.

Markets. If credible forecasts keep moving earlier, markets may begin to price a risk that has had little attention. Networks that offer a clear migration path could look safer than those that do not. This is a possibility, not a prediction, and it would weaken if the forecasts moved later.

What could make this view wrong: a credible demonstration of breaking these signatures at scale, hardware estimates that fall sharply, or an Alliance that fails to attract the large networks.

What can be done

Holders can watch their wallet provider's migration plans and the Alliance's readiness definition, and avoid acting on forecasts alone. Developers can follow the finalized post-quantum standards and plan for larger transactions. Network communities can agree how to handle exposed keys and dormant accounts, which the Alliance's migration group says it will study. This is general information and not investment advice.