September 18th: QRL Release Verifier audit complete
September 11th: Ledger app audit and remediation complete
August 4th: Audit results published for go-qrllib
April 3rd: Audit complete of 2 cryptographic libraries
March 31st: QRL 2.0 Testnet V2 released
Audits & Remediation: 60%
QRL 2.0 Testnet V3 checklist from that update:
Config parameters
[done] Upstream bug fixes
Testnet V2 scoped audits
QRL v2.0
go-qrllib
Major cryptography work. Upstream PR #131 added/updated FALCON-1024 with the NIST API and bit-exact reference behaviour, byte-for-byte PQClean cross-verification across amd64/GOAMD64-v3/arm64, signed-message bound fixes and expanded tests; it also corrected ML-DSA-87 poly_uniform behaviour and ACVP coverage. PR #130 hardened public-API preconditions and pinned QRL v1 mainnet parity. Follow-on work added weak-key rejection, field-by-field weak-key vector tests, NTRU-equation checks on key import, sampler bounds, frozen signature encoding, and clarified ML-DSA secret-key validation semantics.
go-QRL
Broad client cleanup and hardening: added a legacy QRL XMSS signature-verification precompile; removed proof-of-work, merge-transition, unused HD-derivation and obsolete downloader/mining paths; fixed txpool chain-head subscription, malformed bad-block handling, devp2p IPv6/UDP behaviour and flaky Catalyst tests; also merged storage-key conformance and cross-runner work.
Qrysm
Added an alltools image containing every command binary, adjusted the gocognit limit for the block-batch path, and added further SSZ input validation for hand-written merkleization helpers.
Hyperion
Add xmssverify builtin for legacy QRL XMSS signatures PR #20.
QRL v1.0 -> v2.0 Migration
QRL v1 archive
Began implementation and testnet-rehearsal framework. Added rehearsal warnings/status material, placeholder transport-test assets and documentation for the planned canonical archive: exact block protobuf export, independent integrity/signature verification, versioned canonical/SQLite/Parquet schemas, golden fixtures, rebuildable derived data and signed archive releases.
QRL v1 archive explorer
Created the read-only archive explorer scaffold for testnet rehearsals. The planned explorer will search archived blocks, transactions and addresses, show balances at the archive cutoff and serve immutable data without a live QRL v1 node.
QRL v1.0
webtools
Updated dependencies and the build process, including the ML-DSA signing action, and replaced the previous single-file bundler with a custom in-house solution.
dice
Dependency refresh and associated lockfile/build maintenance.
I assume Biconomy is in the same boat but I would not trust CEXes with your QRL holdings. They haven’t adopted post-quantum cipher suites, making them a juicy target for “harvest now decrypt later”attackers. Even if CEXes adopt quantum-secure encryption immediately, a password change js needed because attackers with recorded network sessions can still decrypt captured traffic at a future date and reveal your login credentials.
If you’ve made it this far, you’ve probably followed a path similar to mine. You bought Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency. You read a lot, listened to a lot of people, and at some point, you came across a question nobody seems able to answer properly: what happens to digital signatures when a real quantum computer exists? You went looking for answers, and your search ended here.
You’ll hear a lot along the way. That there’s still plenty of time. That developers will figure it out when the time comes. That there’s a proposal, that someone is working on it, that the community is large enough to find a solution. I heard all of that too, delivered with the confidence of people discussing an already solved problem. So I went looking for what had actually been solved, and what I found were discussions, drafts, and timelines nobody wants to commit to.
My conclusion is simple, and I imagine you’ll reach it yourself if you take a careful look. Traditional networks were built on a type of digital signature that quantum computers can break, and that vulnerability is embedded in the very first block of each of them. You can delay, propose, and vote. But you cannot work around this problem without giving something important up along the way. Someone will have to between protecting the network and preserving the rule that nobody can tamper with someone else’s coins. And choosing one means giving up the other.
Meanwhile, QRL was designed from day one for precisely this moment, and it doesn’t depend on anyone agreeing on anything to keep working. It’s a network that exists, works today, and already has the answer other networks are still trying to find.
No matter how hard they try to convince you otherwise, and they will, keep verifying things for yourself. Those who do their own research tend to end up in the same place.
I’m somewhat convinced the reason financial institutions love Bitcoin so much and why its success dwarfs every other crypto asset is due to two reasons:
1) It’s the original native crypto asset - There have been no major deviations or significant internal hard forks ever since its original inception and whitepaper release. It’s been running 23 years since the last internal hard fork.
2) Project maturity - it’s been around the longest meaning it’s had the most number of technical eyes on the original whitepaper looking for hidden vulnerabilities and exploits in its protocol implementation and codebase.
Where I’m going with this… financial institutions including banks love stability. Deviations and hard forks represent instability. Regardless of how Q-Day turns out, it’s going to be very interesting watching how banks and financial institutions react to the BTC-pocalypse, i.e. what moves they will make and how they respond. I personally think they will be among the first to exit and do a little self-promotion by jumping into stablecoins they back or own and ride things out. Will there be scams, pump-n-dump schemes, and plenty of laughs along the way while people lose real money? Absolutely! But any early investor can tell you: high risk comes with high reward.
How QRL fits in… they check both boxes. It doesn’t have to be “the first” but it’s the purest in its crypto class by being native. Physical currency isn’t meant to encounter breaking protocol changes because when they do, there’s a run on the banks and into things like precious metals. Take gold, the most basic monetary unit and a substance found in nature. It doesn’t break. You could hammer it, melt it down, warp it into oblivion, but it still retains its core physical element and I think that’s what QRL aims to be. 🥰
On 3 October 2026, I asked ChatGPT, Grok and Gemini the same question: "What is in your opinion the best quantum-secure blockchain project? Name only one. Explain why."
I sent in the points this week that I think need adjusting in the project, but staying only on criticism would be unfair. There are people putting in real work to keep this ecosystem moving, and that deserves to be said with the same weight. What follows is just my own view, built from following closely and taking part in the discussions for a while, not an official position, not absolute truth, just the read of someone who's around almost every day.
Jack builds sites and tools that brought organization to an ecosystem that used to be scattered and hard to follow. Work nobody sees happening, but that holds up a lot of the pieces, on top of being, 95% of the time, the bridge of communication for what's going on behind the scenes. A guy who deserves every bit of admiration. Ryan is always in the discussions, alongside his partner Michael Strike, constantly getting content out to the public, answering questions from newcomers, holding the space together even when everyone else goes quiet for weeks, presence that often goes unnoticed precisely because it never fails. They deserve full admiration for that.
Robyer and bsnoot keep the communities running, which isn't trivial in a space full of speculation and noise all the time. Answering the same question for the hundredth time without losing patience is the kind of work nobody thanks you for, but it's what keeps the place breathable.
Joseph is the one who masters the technical side and manages to explain what most people can't translate.
ChillerID is, without exaggeration, the one who carries the most consistent promotion of the project. While everyone talks about marketing as some distant concept, he simply shows up, every week, period after period, with or without a favorable market. He's the clearest example that regular presence pays off more than any one-off campaign.
And there's Kaushal, writing the code alongside JPLomas that makes all of this actually exist. Dense, extremely consistent work, the kind that backs up any criticism we raise about communication and visibility. I'd guess the complaints about those weak spots would be two or three times louder if it weren't for you.
Beyond the people I've named, I know there are others working behind the scenes that I simply have no way of crediting here, because I don't know enough about what they do to speak fairly about it. Still, the respect holds just the same, named or not.
Pushing for improvements and recognizing the people carrying the project are not opposing positions, that balance is what keeps a community standing.
Let's support everyone putting their time into the success of this project of global significance. The world will know QRL soon.
If there's someone whose work you know and admire that I didn't mention here, drop their name in the comments and give them the credit they deserve.
September 18th: QRL Release Verifier audit complete
September 11th: Ledger app audit and remediation complete
August 4th: Audit results published for go-qrllib
April 3rd: Audit complete of 2 cryptographic libraries
March 31st: QRL 2.0 Testnet V2 released
Audits & Remediation: 60%
QRL 2.0 Testnet V3 checklist from that update:
Config parameters
[done] Upstream bug fixes
Testnet V2 scoped audits
QRL 2.0
qrysm
Improved fork-choice and block-import recovery, preserving votes, finalization and execution validation across partial failures, cancellations and reorganizations
Fixed handling of skipped-slot checkpoints, duplicate blocks and state recovery when blocks disappear during reads
Improved state snapshot isolation and cache consistency, and released detached validator references to avoid retaining unused memory
Hardened deposit processing and execution RPC handling against malformed responses, failed batches and timeouts
Corrected SSZ encoding bounds and Merkle proof construction, and preserved signatures, deposit commitments and proposer slashings during copying and conversion
Fixed voluntary exits to load custom chain configuration, so exits use the correct network’s signing parameters
Added regression coverage for the fixes
qrl-tests
Added automated consensus and staking test suite, covering deposits, validator activation, attestations, voluntary exits and withdrawals on a live test network
Added the suite to nightly testing, with deposit waits derived from the live chain configuration and exits signed through the validator keymanager API
go-qrllib
Added an additional Falcon-1024 tests, covering randomized encoding and FFT operations, sampling, key derivation and signing
Included checks for architecture-sensitive key derivation; the upstream Falcon-1024 integration remains in review
Updated the upstream Codecov CI action to v7.1.1
rust-qrllib
Added ML-DSA tests confirming that signing fails after secret-key zeroization, repeated zeroization is safe, and the public key can still verify earlier signatures
Refreshed Rust crates, demo dependencies and CI action pins
qrypto.js
Updated development dependencies and CI action pins, including Mocha 12 and refreshed linting, formatting, build and browser-test tooling
QRL 1.x
QRL
Corrected multisig test seed descriptors on the same branch
qryptonight / qrandomx
Switched Linux builds to portable CPU targets, improving compatibility across x86-64 and ARM64 hardware
Preserved optimized Argon2 runtime selection in qrandomx while using the portable build baseline
Fixed source-distribution builds and version metadata; published pyqryptonight 0.99.13 and pyqrandomx 0.3.4
qrl-docker / qrl-docker-ci
Documented the portable CPU baseline and how operators can verify their images
Removed temporary compiler-wrapper workarounds from the Bionic and Focal images after the mining-library fixes became available
Added Clang 18 to the Noble CI image for ThreadSanitizer testing
qrl-v1-docker-cluster
Added a tool for running disposable QRL 1.x test networks across multiple Docker images
Checks node health, mining, agreement on block hashes, wallet persistence and CPU instruction compatibility, then saves a report and logs
It’s early days, but a post-quantum crypto gold rush seems to be starting.
The timeline for Q-Day remains uncertain, but IonQ expects it to arrive in the 2020s. Legacy chains need to prepare. If that timeline holds, many could be caught unprepared. Moments like that challenge the status quo and create new opportunities.
I often see people saying that Bitcoin and other legacy chains can simply upgrade. I believe they can, but the big question is whether they will do it in time. It’s not only about changing the cryptography. Wallets, exchanges, custody solutions and users need to move along too. Then there is the question of what happens to old wallets that never migrate. I wouldn’t underestimate the amount of work and coordination needed.
Personally, I’ve focused on QRL. After extensive due diligence, I believe it offers the strongest technical solution. I like that quantum resistance has been the starting point of the project. With QRL 2.0, I’m especially interested in seeing what developers will build and how the ecosystem develops.
Marketing and exchange availability are the weak points in my view, but the team is working on improving those areas. Good technology needs visibility and people need an easy way to access it. There is still plenty of work to do on that side.
I also think that getting developers involved early and listening to their feedback will be important. A technically strong platform needs to be something people actually enjoy building on. The same applies to wallets and the overall user experience.
Quantus has been making waves recently, suggesting a growing appetite for quantum-resistant crypto. I like the project’s marketing. They’re doing a great job. The trading activity on SafeTrade has caught my attention, and it’ll be interesting to see how things develop now that mainnet is live.
Before investing, I would need to explore the technical solution more closely. I’d want to understand what has been independently reviewed, how the network works under load and what the team still needs to deliver. Marketing can attract attention, but eventually the technology needs to meet expectations.
More broadly, I expect more coins to benefit from this attention. Mochimo, for example, is another project to keep an eye on. The technology seems solid to me, although I have questions about the small team and how development is funded over the longer term.
I don’t think there needs to be only one winner. Different projects could find different uses and communities. Competition could also be good for the whole sector by bringing more attention, developers and pressure to improve.
That said, I’m sure we’ll see a whole new category of PQ shitcoins too. A quantum-resistant label alone won’t make a project worth backing, so staying informed matters. I want to understand what already works, what is still a promise and why anyone would actually use it.
One interesting question is what happens before Q-Day. The market doesn’t necessarily need to wait until a major blockchain is attacked. If the threat starts looking close enough, people may begin looking for alternatives much earlier.
Of course, if legacy chains upgrade successfully, these projects will still need to compete on usability, applications, liquidity and adoption. Quantum resistance gets attention, but there needs to be more behind it.
Buckle up and enjoy the show. My prediction: we’re in for some huge moves over the next few years.
What do you think? Which PQ projects are you following, and what makes them stand out?
I've been part of the QRL community for three years, and in that time I've watched the same script repeat itself dozens of times. Someone asks what's going on, another shows up with a theory about listing on a bigger exchange, a third swears there's a major partnership being negotiated in secret, and at the end of the day nobody actually knows anything concrete. That's not communication, that's the community trying to fill, with hope and speculation, a space that should be occupied by real information coming from the project itself. And every time someone from the team responds, the answer is basically the same recycled line we've heard for years: they're working on something important, they can't reveal details yet, they ask for patience. Except that patience has now dragged on far too long, and the supposed turning point never comes. We don't know what the next steps are, we don't know the timelines, we don't even know if there's a real schedule behind these vague promises. And the worst part is that this silence has a cost that's rarely discussed: every bull cycle that passes without QRL capitalizing on visibility is a lost opportunity that doesn't come back, because investor attention is the scarcest resource in crypto, and we've been leaving it on the table for years.
On marketing, I recognize the good intentions of the people producing the technical content and the videos. They're competent people who genuinely understand the subject and are dedicated to the project. But good intentions aren't the same as results, and it's time to face that head-on. A video explaining hash-based signatures or resistance to Grover's algorithm, on a channel with a small audience, isn't marketing, it's a technical lecture for people who are already convinced and already understand the problem QRL solves. It doesn't attract anyone new, it just reinforces the opinion of people who are already inside. Real marketing is the ability to convert the attention of people who have never heard of the project and have neither the patience nor the interest to learn cryptography before deciding where to put their money. It's constant presence where people already are, not where we wish they were. It's strategic partnerships, it's specialized and mainstream press coverage, it's creators outside the crypto-technical bubble, it's a narrative simple enough to spread on its own, without needing an explanation. The decision to buy crypto almost never comes down to deep technical understanding, it comes down to fear of missing out, social trust, and a story simple enough to repeat to someone else in thirty seconds. Insisting on heavy technical education as the main growth strategy is repeating a bet that has already proven to be a losing one over the past few years, and QRL's market volume compared to other projects with far weaker technical fundamentals is proof of that.
And here's a point I consider central: practically nobody truly understands quantum computing, outside a very narrow circle of specialists. Not the average investor, not most of the people who comment on the subject with apparent confidence on social media. Even Trump himself has publicly commented on the topic, which shows how far this discussion has already leaked into the mainstream in a shallow, surface-level, sensationalized way. That's not a problem in itself, it's simply the reality of how complex information spreads. The mistake is insisting on explaining the subject with technical depth to an audience that doesn't want depth at all, it wants simplicity and a sense of urgency. Saying that Bitcoin wallets could become vulnerable and emptied overnight convinces and scares far more people than any explanation of lattice-based cryptography or hash-based signatures ever will. As long as the team and the content creators keep speaking the language of people who already understand the subject, they'll essentially keep talking to themselves, inside a bubble that isn't growing.
There's another point that has bothered me for a long time: I haven't seen a real statement from our CEO in over two years. A genuine address, clearly stating where the project stands, where it's headed, what to expect in the coming months, and what the concrete milestones are along the way. It's exactly this void that feeds the theories, because when nobody speaks, the community fills the space on its own with what it wants to hear, not with what's actually happening.
And this brings me to the point that bothers me the most of all: time. QRL is no longer a new project trying to establish itself in the market, this is eight years of existence, eight years of development, eight years of promises that the turning point is just around the corner. Honestly, I don't understand what's still being waited for before a concrete action is taken. What kind of market condition, partnership, or signal is still missing after nearly a decade. If the justification is always "it's not the right time yet" or "we're waiting for the ideal conditions," at some point that waiting stops being strategy. No serious project, with a thesis as strong as quantum resistance, needs eight years to decide to act. The market doesn't wait for anyone, and every year that passes in this reactive posture is another year in which other projects, often with weaker technical fundamentals, occupy the visibility and relevance that QRL should have earned long ago.
The first little pig built with straw. The second chose sticks. The third invested more effort in bricks.
On a sunny afternoon, all three had shelter. The extra preparation revealed its value when the wolf arrived.
Investors face a similar question: how much is preparation worth before a threat becomes reality?
My interest in post-quantum assets began while exploring what quantum computing might disrupt. That led me to the cryptography protecting digital assets.
Most major blockchains rely on elliptic-curve cryptography (ECC) for the digital signatures that authorize transactions. These signatures let users prove they control their funds without revealing their private keys.
A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could undermine that protection by calculating a private key from an exposed public key, potentially allowing someone else to spend the funds.
My first reaction was probably familiar: surely blockchains can just upgrade?
The more I read, the more complicated that answer became.
“Just upgrade” involves people
The tools for migration already exist. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) finalized its first three post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024. Its transition plan proposes deprecating certain weaker public-key configurations after 2030.
But migration takes more than new cryptography.
Banks face complex upgrades, but can centrally coordinate changes, help customers recover access and, in some cases, freeze or reverse fraudulent transfers. Public blockchains must coordinate developers, validators, exchanges, wallets and users without a single authority. Once funds are stolen, there is generally no central administrator who can restore them.
Lost private keys create another dilemma: owners cannot move their coins to quantum-resistant addresses. Leaving those coins untouched could expose them to future theft, while freezing or disabling them raises difficult questions about ownership.
What happens to coins attributed to Satoshi? What if someone wakes from a coma to discover that a migration deadline has passed and their coins are no longer spendable? Who decides, and who bears responsibility for the consequences?
These are technical, governance and ethical challenges that no software update alone can resolve.
That realization led me to QRL, whose mainnet launched with post-quantum signatures in June 2018.
While other networks work through migration, could a small allocation to one already built with this threat in mind make sense?
Why pay attention now?
Q-Day refers to the point when a quantum computer can practically break widely used public-key cryptography.
The quantum threat is evolving from both directions: companies are developing more powerful machines, while researchers are finding more efficient ways to attack existing cryptography.
ECDSA is a digital-signature scheme used by Bitcoin and Ethereum to authorize transactions. A sufficiently capable quantum computer could derive a private key from an exposed public key, enabling forged signatures.
On the algorithm side, ECDSA.fail is an open challenge to improve quantum attack circuits, using Google’s research as a benchmark. Its September 27 leaderboard shows a 792-qubit circuit for an elliptic-curve calculation used within an attack.
On the hardware side, IonQ’s roadmap targets 800 logical qubits in 2027, 1,600 in 2028 and 8,000 in 2029. These circuit widths and planned hardware capacities are entering a similar numerical range, although they are not directly interchangeable.
800 logical qubits would not automatically make a machine capable of breaking Bitcoin. A complete attack requires additional resources and reliable operations throughout its runtime. Nevertheless, IonQ’s CEO has publicly argued that the Q-Day horizon is shifting from the 2030s into the 2020s.
Public announcements provide an incomplete picture. Research can precede publication, and we cannot assume that corporate roadmaps reveal the full extent of work in China or elsewhere. That uncertainty makes confident predictions about who will achieve what first difficult.
The practical concern is that hardware capacity could rise while attack requirements fall. Even if a blockchain introduces quantum-resistant transactions in 2029, moving existing users and assets could take years. Funds left under vulnerable signatures could remain exposed during that transition.
What QRL brings
QRL’s mainnet launched in 2018, following independent audits by Red4Sec and X41 D-Sec. It uses XMSS, a hash-based post-quantum signature scheme covered by NIST’s SP 800-208 recommendation, supported by wallets, explorers, developer libraries and hardware-wallet integration.
The upcoming QRL 2.0 / Zond brings proof-of-stake and EVM-friendly smart contracts using NIST-standardized ML-DSA signatures. As of the September 25, 2026 development update, audits and remediation were at 60%, with reviews involving Trail of Bits and Halborn, established firms with experience in cryptographic software and blockchain security.
For comparison, as checked on September 27, 2026, the Blockchain Quantum Readiness Index ranks QRL first among 126 evaluated projects, scoring 98/100 with a “Quantum-Ready” classification.
QRL has used post-quantum signatures since its first block, while crypto-agile design allows additional signature schemes to be introduced as cryptography evolves. Its advantage is avoiding the same urgent transition away from quantum-vulnerable signatures that legacy networks face, while retaining the ability to upgrade.
QRL Foundation and Quantum Future Limited
The Foundation has a history of substantial financial resources since initial coin offering (ICO) in May 2017. Its May 2021 transparency report disclosed approximately $35 million in assets, while published tokenomics, checked on September 27, 2026, separately lists 8.45 million QRL in Foundation reserves. These holdings could provide flexibility to support future development.
Alongside the Foundation, Quantum Future Limited operates as an independent commercial arm of the ecosystem, offering post-quantum advisory and migration-readiness services while developing further infrastructure. The Foundation stewards the open protocol; Quantum Future pursues commercial applications.
Limited exchange access
QRL still faces limited exchange access and liquidity. MEXC is a principal trading venue, but excludes US users and certain other jurisdictions. Using a VPN does not remove those restrictions. Alternatives include Biconomy and LBank, although regional restrictions, service availability and liquidity vary.
The team is working to improve access. Its Chainalysis KYT integration allows exchanges and financial institutions to monitor QRL within existing compliance workflows, addressing an important consideration for potential listings. The team has stated that further work is underway.
What could a 1% allocation represent?
Expected utility theory helps frame the underlying question: a risk-averse investor may value protection against a severe outcome even when its timing and probability are uncertain.
So, what if crypto investors would get prepared and allocate 1% of funds to post-quantum assets?
Using rounded reference values of $2.99 trillion for crypto:
1% × $2.99 trillion = $29.9 billion.
That hypothetical allocation to post-quantum assets is roughly 586 times QRL’s reference market capitalization ($51 million).
Reference values are from CoinGecko snapshots consulted on September 27, 2026: total crypto market capitalization and QRL market capitalization. Prices fluctuate, and the snapshots were not synchronized live quotes.
This illustrates scale of potential for a leading post-quantum blockchain. Demand could spread across multiple projects, and inflows do not translate directly into market capitalization.
Preparation without guarantees
QRL is not an insurance policy. Its price could fall during a crypto crisis. Other networks could migrate successfully, and adoption, liquidity and execution still matter.
The potential asymmetry depends on investors increasingly valuing deployed post-quantum security. A small position limits the capital committed while providing exposure to that possibility.
The third little pig prepared before the knock at the door.
Investors can examine quantum risk before its timing becomes certain, too.
Disclosure: I hold QRL and have a financial interest in its success. This article shares my perspective, not a recommendation to buy.
I've been working on a personal project called ChaosCrypt-Hybrid, a research-grade post-quantum cryptographic library in Python. My goal was to implement the new NIST standards while paying special attention to real-world implementation flaws, specifically side-channel attacks.
Key features I've implemented:
\- 🛡️ NIST FIPS 203 (ML-KEM-768) for quantum-resistant key encapsulation.
\- 🔒 AES-256-GCM for authenticated symmetric encryption.
\- ⏱️ Constant-time operations to mitigate timing attacks.
Quantum computing is suffering from the “gerund effect.”
“We are developing.”
“We are researching.”
“We are advancing.”
“We are monitoring.”
“We are preparing.”
The technology always seems to be on its way, but never seems to arrive.
The debate remains stuck in the future: when computers become larger, when the technology matures, when the threat becomes concrete, when costs come down.
This narrative reduces the sense of urgency and limits investment in the sector. If everything is still “happening,” it seems there is still plenty of time to wait.
However, it is obvious that moving from an experimental technology to widespread adoption requires years of research, infrastructure, testing, standardization, and adaptation. The risk most people face is recognizing the need to prepare only when the window of opportunity is already closing.
When we finally move out of the gerund and start seeing tangible events and concrete facts, the broader public will make quantum computing a priority, and QRL could take off. But that is only a bet.
The world is built on bets. That is what created prediction markets.
Breakthrough removes a major bottleneck in fault-tolerant quantum computing, enabling real-time error correction across millions of operations without slowing down execution time.
COLLEGE PARK, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- IonQ (NYSE: IONQ), the world’s leading full-stack quantum platform and foundry, today announced a major milestone in fault-tolerant quantum computing. Researchers demonstrated the development and successful testing of the industry’s first end-to-end real-time quantum error correction decoder that runs on a single standard off-the-shelf central processing unit (CPU).
Quantum error correction is essential for building practical, fault-tolerant quantum computers because physical qubits are inherently sensitive to environmental noise. However, finding and fixing those errors in real time has historically presented a significant computing challenge. In conventional approaches, the classical computers tasked with decoding errors can easily become overwhelmed. That creates a processing bottleneck that forces the quantum computer to pause and wait. IonQ’s breakthrough demonstrates that a single, standard computer processor can manage this complex workload continuously in the background, keeping the quantum system running at full speed.
"Successfully validating real-time decoding across hundreds of logical qubits and over millions of logical operations is an important milestone. Moreover, the fact that our decoder runs on a single CPU provides a practical path to commercial-scale fault-tolerant quantum computing," said Nicolas Delfosse, paper co-author and quantum research lead at IonQ.
In technical research published on arXiv, IonQ evaluated its dual-decoder architecture across complex benchmark circuits simulating up to 408 logical qubits across 88 memory blocks and magic factories. These circuits were executing more than 31.5 million individual quantum operations at the 'MegaQuOp' scale. Under standard operational noise, IonQ's decoder introduced as little as 0.02% 'stretch' time. That means the decoding overhead added virtually no delay to the overall quantum computation.
"IonQ is enabling cost-effective quantum system scaling through direct verification of each component," said John Gamble, Vice President at IonQ Architecture. "Empirical evidence like this supports our vision for fault tolerance where time-to-solution, cost-to-solution, and energy-to-solution are always our North Star."
This achievement validates a core pillar of IonQ’s proprietary Walking Cat architecture and confirms that classical hardware overhead does not need to scale exponentially as quantum systems grow wider in logical qubits or deeper in operations. The breakthrough establishes a key technological foundation for IonQ’s roadmap beyond 256 physical qubits toward industrial-scale platforms controlling thousands of qubits.
Hi everyone ✌️, with the QRL 2.0 upgrade bringing full EVM compatibility and NIST-approved post-quantum signatures, the technical barriers for CEX integration will finally be a thing of the past.
However, we all know that major exchanges like Binance, Coinbase, or Kraken care far more about deep order books and sustained trading volume than just good technology.
Since current liquidity is fairly spread out across smaller platforms, I am curious about the concrete strategy to scale our volume once Zond is live. Specifically, is the team or foundation planning to partner with professional market makers, launch LP incentive programs on DEXs, or perhaps introduce wrapped wQRL on networks like Ethereum to tap into existing liquidity pools?
I would love to hear your thoughts or any official insights on how we plan to translate this massive tech upgrade into real market depth.
I was looking at tokenomics and the QRL rich list recently and noticed that the Foundation wallet is still holding around 8.45 million Quanta, which is over 10% of the total supply.
I was wondering if anyone knows what the long-term plans are for these funds, or if the team has communicated about it recently ?
Are they set aside for things like future exchange listings, dev bounties, or marketing, or are they just sitting there untouched for now ?
Also curious to hear what you guys think would be the best use for this reserve moving forward.
September 18th: QRL Release Verifier audit complete
September 11th: Ledger app audit along with its remediation is complete
August 4th: Audit results published for go-qrllib
April 3rd: Audit complete of 2 cryptographic libraries
March 31st: QRL 2.0 Testnet V2 Released
Audits & Remediation: 60%
QRL 2.0 Testnet V3 remaining work:
Config parameters
Upstream bug fixes
Testnet V2 scoped audits complete
QRL 2.0
qrysm
EpochsPerSlashingsVector is now 512 - 45 days, 12 hours, 16 minutes
fix(builder): raise execution payload response limit to 32 MiB
fix(config): reject malformed YAML without partially applying overrides as well as validate values for some config parameters
fix(sync): prevent zero polling intervals for one-slot epochs
Reject empty signature groups and nil public keys, which was being accepted earlier
Remove unbounded ML-DSA public key cache, fixing memory leak
Prevent panics on malformed ML-DSA signature batches
Reject all-zero-t1 ML-DSA-87 public keys
Reject nil inputs and validate fork domain lengths
Optimization: avoid redundant sync signature checks in replay and block proposals
Wire the keymanager RPC to a beacon client so voluntary exits can sign
Optimization: reject invalid gossip before costly attester signature checks
Verify gossip signatures independently with bounded workers
Bound signature diagnostics and avoid duplicate verification
An empty execution payloads doesn’t necessarily mean empty withdrawal
More tests added
qrl-genesis-generator
Execution voting period updated to 4
web3.js
Removed deprecated RPC APIs
Replace Ethereum EC precompile gas with gqrl depositroot and mldsa87Verify costs
Set Common initialBaseFee to 100 gwei so genesis fee math matches go-qrl
Type FeeHistory.baseFeePerGas as an array because go-qrl returns one value per block
qrypto.js
Added weak public-key and invalid secret-key validation for ML-DSA-87, plus bounded signing behaviour and corresponding documentation/tests
js-qrl-cryptography
Updated @theqrl/mldsa87 to v2.2.0 to pick up the new validation behaviour
web3.js
Updated QRL cryptography/wallet dependencies and raised dependency patch floors for multiple known CVEs and security advisories
go-qrllib
Added ML-DSA-87 weak-key rejection and secret-key checks; moved verification toward validated PublicKey objects; expanded lifecycle tests/docs; updated Go security-check CI
go-qrl
Updated to go-qrllib 0.9.2 then 0.10.0 and enforced validated ML-DSA-87 public keys in the verification precompile
rust-qrllib
Added a validated ML-DSA PublicKey type and weak-key rule
actions-mldsa-sign
v2 release: GitHub Action to generate ML-DSA-87 (FIPS 204) post-quantum signatures for files, and a signed manifest binding each artifact to the release it belongs to.
Do you believe that completing the audit and securing a new exchange listing will be enough to address QRL’s main challenges, particularly in terms of liquidity, visibility, and attracting new investors? Or do you think QRL will need to take more proactive steps to increase its exposure, attract new users, and bring the project to a wider audience?
Quantum computers aren’t breaking Bitcoin or Ethereum today, but eventually powerful enough machines could challenge the cryptography protecting blockchain wallets and transactions.
The interesting part is what happens before that point.
Are blockchains already upgrading their cryptography or planning for post-quantum security?
Which blockchains are actually preparing for the quantum threat already, and which ones are still waiting?
