Solana and Aptos are racing to upgrade their blockchains before a new kind of threat becomes real: quantum computers powerful enough to crack today’s cryptography.
As quantum hardware moves from lab experiments to early commercial prototypes, the once-theoretical idea that blockchains could be broken by quantum attacks is starting to look like a practical risk. In response, major Layer 1 networks have begun experimenting with “post‑quantum” cryptography—new mathematical schemes designed to withstand the capabilities of future quantum machines.
On Tuesday, the Solana Foundation revealed that it has been working with post‑quantum security firm Project Eleven to stress‑test Solana’s existing cryptographic primitives against potential quantum attacks. The goal: understand how vulnerable today’s signatures and key schemes might be, and identify realistic migration paths to quantum‑safe alternatives.
“Quantum computers aren’t here yet, but Solana Foundation is preparing for the possibility,” the organization wrote on X, noting that it has already begun evaluating candidate algorithms and how they would fit into Solana’s high‑performance design.
Why Quantum Threatens Blockchains
Most modern blockchains, including Solana, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Aptos, rely on public‑key cryptography based on elliptic curves or related number‑theoretic problems. These systems are considered secure against classical computers, which would take astronomically long to derive a private key from a public one or to forge a digital signature.
Quantum computers, however, change the assumptions. An algorithm known as Shor’s algorithm can, in theory, break widely used schemes such as ECDSA and EdDSA once a quantum machine with sufficient qubits and low error rates exists. That would open the door to:
– Forging signatures to authorize fake transactions
– Stealing funds from old or “exposed” addresses
– Spoofing validator identities and attacking consensus
– Tampering with smart contracts that rely on classical signatures
This isn’t an immediate danger today—current quantum hardware is far too limited—but many cryptographers warn that the industry is entering a “harvest‑now, decrypt‑later” era. Attackers can already record blockchain data and any revealed public keys, then wait until quantum computers catch up to break them in the future.
What Solana Is Actually Testing
Solana’s core design emphasizes extremely fast throughput, parallel execution, and low latency. Any move to more complex cryptography risks slowing that down. That’s why the foundation is focusing first on feasibility studies and performance trials rather than rushing to ship changes to mainnet.
Work with Project Eleven reportedly involves:
– Assessing how Solana’s current signature scheme (Ed25519) would fare against realistic quantum capabilities
– Benchmarking post‑quantum signature algorithms—especially lattice‑based ones such as those in the CRYSTALS family
– Modeling how larger key and signature sizes would affect Solana’s block size, transaction costs, and validator hardware requirements
– Mapping different migration scenarios, from optional quantum‑safe wallets to a full protocol‑level switch in the long term
In practice, this means running testnets and simulations where standard signatures are replaced with post‑quantum ones, then measuring the impact on throughput, storage, and network synchronization.
Aptos Joins the Quantum‑Resilience Push
Solana isn’t alone. Aptos, another high‑throughput Layer 1 blockchain, has also started to explore quantum‑resistant design choices. Its developers are evaluating how post‑quantum signatures could be integrated into its Move‑based smart contract framework, and what it would take for users and validators to migrate safely.
Aptos engineers face similar trade‑offs: quantum‑safe schemes tend to produce much bigger signatures and keys than today’s elliptic‑curve systems, which inflates on‑chain data and increases bandwidth usage. For a network built around performance, that’s a non‑trivial cost.
Some of the options under consideration across the industry include:
– Lattice‑based signatures (such as Dilithium‑style schemes)
– Hash‑based signatures for special‑purpose or one‑time uses
– Hybrid schemes combining classical and post‑quantum signatures to smooth the transition period
Aptos developers are particularly interested in flexible account models that could let users upgrade keys over time without losing their on‑chain history or assets.
From Theory to Roadmaps
For years, “quantum FUD” was mostly relegated to speculative debates. That is starting to change as real quantum roadmaps from hardware companies point toward machines with thousands or tens of thousands of logical qubits in the coming decades.
Blockchains cannot afford to wait until the last minute. Unlike centralized systems, you can’t simply flip a switch overnight and migrate everyone’s keys and signatures. Any transition must:
– Preserve existing balances and transaction histories
– Avoid forcing users to constantly move funds or interact with vulnerable addresses
– Maintain consensus security during and after the migration
– Minimize disruption to dApps, wallets, and infrastructure providers
That’s why teams like Solana and Aptos are starting now, when quantum attacks are still hypothetical. Designing, testing, standardizing, and deploying new cryptography across global networks is a multi‑year process.
The Wallet and User‑Side Problem
Even if the core protocol becomes quantum‑safe, user behavior remains a weak link. Many people reuse addresses, expose public keys multiple times, or leave large sums in hot wallets for convenience.
Post‑quantum planning therefore has to include:
– Wallet software that can generate and manage quantum‑resistant keys
– Clear, non‑technical guidance for users on when and how to upgrade their wallets
– Account abstraction or multi‑key mechanisms where classical and post‑quantum keys can coexist for a while
– Recovery paths for users who lose access to older wallets during the transition
Solana and Aptos developers are considering models where an account can be controlled by both an existing elliptic‑curve key and a new post‑quantum key. Over time, networks could encourage or even require that all new transactions be authorized by quantum‑safe keys.
Validators and Infrastructure Need an Upgrade Path Too
It’s not just end users who must adapt. Validators, RPC providers, and custodial services all depend heavily on current cryptographic libraries and hardware acceleration.
Moving to post‑quantum cryptography will likely require:
– New validator software that supports quantum‑safe signatures in consensus messages
– Updated hardware recommendations, since bigger signatures and verification costs may raise compute and memory demands
– Coordination across data centers and hosting environments to handle larger data flows
– Custody solutions that can secure both classical and post‑quantum keys without adding excessive complexity
Solana’s collaboration with security specialists is partly about understanding these operational impacts before making any firm commitments to specific algorithms.
Performance vs. Security: The Core Trade‑Off
One of the toughest challenges for Solana and Aptos is balancing their brand promise—speed and scale—against the heavier footprint of post‑quantum schemes.
Compared with Ed25519, many post‑quantum signatures are:
– 5–20 times larger in size
– Slower to verify at high volume
– More demanding in memory and bandwidth
On a slow chain, the overhead might be tolerable. On a network designed to process tens of thousands of transactions per second, even modest slowdowns can be painful.
This is why many teams are experimenting with hybrid models, where:
– Classical signatures secure day‑to‑day operations in the near term
– Post‑quantum signatures are introduced as optional enhancements for high‑value accounts
– Over time, the weighting shifts, eventually making quantum‑safe methods the default standard once credible quantum threats emerge
Regulatory and Standardization Pressure
There is also a regulatory angle. Governments and standards bodies are in the process of selecting post‑quantum algorithms for official use in sensitive communications and data protection. As these standards solidify, pressure will increase on financial and infrastructure systems—including public blockchains—to align with them.
Networks like Solana and Aptos that move early may:
– Attract institutional participants concerned about long‑term data security
– Be seen as more future‑proof by regulators and enterprises
– Gain experience with post‑quantum primitives before they become mandatory across the broader ecosystem
At the same time, aligning too early with algorithms that are later revised or deprecated is its own risk. That’s another reason most teams are starting with research, experimentation, and modular designs that allow algorithm swaps later.
What It Means for Crypto Investors and Builders
For investors, the quantum‑resilience race is fast becoming a differentiator among Layer 1 ecosystems. While the immediate risk remains low, networks that show credible technical planning may be better positioned for long‑term adoption by institutions and serious builders.
For developers building on Solana or Aptos, the shift implies:
– Future SDK and library updates to support post‑quantum keys and signatures
– Potential changes in how smart contracts verify identities or access control
– New best practices for storing public keys, addresses, and authentication data
Teams designing protocols with multi‑decade lifespans—such as decentralized identity systems, long‑term storage markets, or tokenized real‑world assets—have particular incentive to factor quantum resistance into their roadmaps today.
The Long Timeline—And Why Acting Early Still Matters
Experts disagree on when exactly quantum computers will pose a credible threat to current blockchain cryptography. Estimates range from “several decades away” to “possibly within 10–20 years” for systems large and stable enough to run real attacks.
However, blockchains are, by design, append‑only and transparent. Every public key revealed today can be stored indefinitely. If funds remain tied to those keys in the 2030s or 2040s, they could be at risk even if the original owners are no longer active in the ecosystem.
That’s why networks like Solana and Aptos are choosing to view quantum not as science‑fiction fearmongering but as a slow‑moving, inevitable shift in the computing landscape. By testing quantum‑resistant cryptography now—before any crisis forces rushed decisions—they aim to give their communities a smoother, safer path into a post‑quantum future.
In practical terms, nothing changes overnight for users. Keys, wallets, and transactions continue to function as usual. But behind the scenes, the foundations of major blockchains are being quietly re‑examined, re‑benchmarked, and redesigned to survive a world where the old guarantees of cryptography no longer apply.