In January 2026, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) officially elevated post-quantum research to a top strategic priority, bringing what was originally an academic exploration to the public stage and transforming it into a core narrative at the roadmap level. Behind this shift is a time race that has been repeatedly emphasized yet remains vague: quantum computing may evolve into a real threat within the next 5 to 10 years, while a comprehensive upgrade of the public chain security stack often requires an equal or even longer period. EF researcher Justin Drake referred to this adjustment as a "key turning point from backend research to proactive engineering," and industry analysts have also warned that "wallet security and network upgrades must be planned five years in advance." When "moving from research to engineering implementation" was written into the foundation's agenda, the quantum threat officially transformed from a distant risk into a countdown clock facing the Ethereum developer ecosystem.
From Backend Research to Frontline Combat: EF Initiates Post-Quantum Engineering Process
● At the organizational level, EF established the Post-Quantum Team in 2026, led by Thomas Coratger with technical support from Emile, marking the upgrade of post-quantum topics from decentralized research groups and academic collaborations to a dedicated team with clear responsibilities and delivery expectations. This specialization means that post-quantum is no longer just "an interest area for certain researchers," but is incorporated into the foundation's medium- to long-term roadmap as a structural task.
● At the engineering level, EF has launched a multi-client anti-quantum consensus testing network, allowing different Ethereum clients to practice key processes such as signature replacement and consensus adjustments in a unified testing scenario. Although EF has deliberately not disclosed performance metrics, node scale, and other details, the design of "multi-client" itself brings the originally abstract cryptographic solutions into real friction scenarios involving client implementation, node operation, and toolchain compatibility, warming up for future mainnet migration.
● In terms of coordination mechanisms, EF has arranged bi-weekly developer meetings to formalize and rhythmize post-quantum topics: security solutions are no longer annual academic reports but are broken down into specific milestones such as "client adaptation," "testnet progress," and "wallet interface changes." For Ethereum, which is known for its security but often criticized for slow decision-making, this adjustment of turning "security issues" into "engineering iteration tasks" represents an important methodological shift.
● From narrative to resources, Justin Drake publicly characterized this shift as "moving from backend research to proactive engineering," reflecting a systematic adjustment by EF in terms of resources, roadmap, and community expectations: post-quantum has been listed as a key direction in budget planning, discussions on technical routes have included signature and key replacement mechanisms as core topics, and community communication has shifted from "long-term possibilities" to "migration projects we must face together in the coming years," embedding the quantum threat into Ethereum's development storyline.
Quantum Countdown of Five to Ten Years: The Time Race of Blockchain and Security Upgrades
● On the background level, IBM crossed the 50-qubit milestone in 2025, combined with mainstream expectations regarding the development curve of quantum hardware, forming a widely discussed 5 to 10-year potential risk window. EF and the research community deliberately avoid providing any specific predictions for cracking times, but the consensus that "the next decade may enter a substantial threat range" is enough to compel public chains to begin planning and engineering preparations today.
● In terms of security models, the core foundation of Ethereum and most public chains—public key cryptography—faces structural challenges in the quantum era: public keys exposed on-chain, large assets held long-term, wallet addresses that have been inactive for years but carry significant value, and complex contract states may all be concentratedly exposed when quantum computing power is sufficient. The issue is not just "whether it will be cracked," but rather how quickly and on what scale all historically accumulated public keys and contract states will be attacked once exposed.
● The engineering reality is that upgrading public chain security is not as simple as replacing a library file; it involves a full-stack transformation of the consensus layer, signature algorithms, wallet ecosystem, node software, contract design, and L2 protocols. Just taking signature replacement as an example, it involves multiple chain reactions such as address formats, fee calculations, hardware wallet firmware updates, and node indexing methods. Such migrations often require years of preparation and multi-stage transitions, far exceeding the complexity of ordinary protocol upgrades.
● In this misalignment, "planning five years in advance" has become a high-frequency viewpoint in the industry. One industry analyst bluntly stated, "wallet security and network upgrades must be planned five years in advance," otherwise, when quantum computing power truly approaches the threat threshold, the migration project at the mainnet level will not be completed in time. In this sense, EF's actions in 2026 resemble a preliminary battle in a systematic reinforcement project destined to last a decade.
From ZK Accumulation to Post-Quantum Defense Line: How Ethereum Migrates Cryptographic Assets
● In recent years, Ethereum has invested heavily in the ZK-proofs field, from rollups to privacy applications, promoting the maturity of a complete toolchain including proof systems, elliptic curve implementations, and verification circuit optimizations. These accumulations are not unrelated to post-quantum topics; on the contrary, high-intensity cryptographic engineering and complex proof system deployment experience provide transferable technical and organizational capital for Ethereum to explore a new generation of post-quantum solutions.
● The multi-client anti-quantum consensus testing network proposed by EF is a preliminary exercise based on this accumulation. Although the official avoids disclosing specific TPS, node numbers, and other hard metrics, the ability to allow multiple clients to test new signature types, consensus modifications, and transaction format changes in a unified environment indicates that EF is attempting to solve systemic issues such as "how to maintain consistency between different implementations" and "how to migrate without interrupting the network" in advance.
● In the macro environment, the NIST in the U.S. will release the first batch of post-quantum encryption standards in 2024, providing important references for global cryptographic system selection. For Ethereum, these standards are not a "menu to be copied directly," but at least provide directional guidance on algorithm families, attack-defense assumptions, and implementation priorities for future signature and encryption scheme selections, reducing the probability of taking detours and reserving compliance interface space for integration with regulatory and traditional financial systems.
● To avoid the post-quantum topic remaining in the "academic circle self-indulgence," EF emphasizes transforming abstract theories into actionable tools and practices through cryptographic awards, community activities, and developer meetings in its planning. Research awards encourage solutions closer to engineering needs, while hackathons and workshops promote wallet developers, L2 teams, and contract engineers to genuinely try new signature and key management models, cultivating "early adopters" and technical evangelists for future large-scale migrations at the community level.
The Quantum Arms Race of Public Chains: Ethereum's Scale Advantage and Migration Challenges
● In the broader landscape of public chains, a few projects like Algorand have already adopted more quantum-resistant proof systems like STARKs on-chain, making this a significant part of their differentiated narrative. These projects are smaller in scale and have lighter historical burdens, making it easier for them to embed anti-quantum designs into their protocol core early on, positioning themselves in the quantum arms race with a "first-mover experimental" stance.
● In contrast, the Ethereum mainnet still widely uses traditional elliptic curve signatures (such as those based on secp256k1), which indicates that its infrastructure is closely tied to the paths of early public chains like Bitcoin. However, it also exposes the structural contradiction of "huge stock and slow turnaround"—any changes to the signature and address system must contend with compatibility issues involving hundreds of millions of addresses, vast asset lockups, and historical transactions.
● However, Ethereum's scale is not solely a burden. The large TVL, rich DeFi and application ecosystem, and the world's largest smart contract developer community also provide it with advantages that other public chains find hard to replicate for experimenting with new solutions and rolling migrations: it can pilot on L2 and application layers, run new and old solutions concurrently, and gradually sink mature models to the mainnet. In the quantum arms race, this is a double-edged sword that both increases difficulty and amplifies the rewards of success.
● The industry's overall attitude towards quantum risks remains highly polarized: some projects choose to actively brand themselves as "quantum-resistant," emphasizing their advanced layout in cryptography; others believe that quantum threats are still a medium- to long-term issue and invest more resources in scaling and user growth. EF's strategic upgrade this time is equivalent to making a statement in this polarized landscape—Ethereum will not treat quantum risks as a distant academic issue, but as an explicit variable in its roadmap choices for the next decade.
Funding and Education Boost: How Security Upgrades Reach Every Wallet
● In terms of resource allocation, EF has clearly planned to significantly increase funding for post-quantum-related initiatives in 2026, but deliberately does not disclose specific amounts and budget structures to avoid creating unnecessary numerical focal points. It can be confirmed that post-quantum research, test network maintenance, client adaptation, and related infrastructure will receive more sustained and concentrated manpower and financial support in the coming years.
● These resources will partially flow into cryptographic awards, community activities, and educational projects: attracting academia and engineering teams to tackle post-quantum-friendly signature schemes and migration tools through public reward mechanisms, and providing technical conferences, online courses, and specialized training for wallet/node operators to make "post-quantum security" a constraint that developers need to consider in their daily decision-making.
● This also means that wallet developers, infrastructure teams, and DeFi projects need to reassess their technology stacks in the medium to long term: whether signature schemes support smooth transitions, whether key management reserves space for multiple algorithms to coexist, and whether contract designs assume "addresses remain unchanged and permanently secure." Future protocol designs are more likely to view key rotation, algorithm upgrades, and asset migrations as built-in capabilities rather than emergency operations patched up afterward.
● From the perspective of ordinary users, the arrival of the quantum era may translate into a series of specific and troublesome operations within a few years: wallet software upgrades, adjustments to multi-signature or social recovery schemes, and migrating assets from old addresses to new addresses or even to new account systems under new algorithms. These processes involve changes in signature experiences, transaction fee expenditures, and operational risks, but they may also give rise to a new generation of security tools, migration services, and insurance products, creating opportunities for participants who understand the importance of early planning.
Ethereum's Future Roadmap Choices Under the Quantum Shadow
The Ethereum Foundation's elevation of post-quantum research to a top strategic priority in 2026 formally acknowledges that the quantum threat is no longer a footnote in white papers but is part of the core development narrative. From establishing dedicated teams and running multi-client test networks to planning funding and educational investments, EF is building a complete defense line for Ethereum that spans research, engineering, and community awareness.
Looking at future paths, at least two distinctly different scenarios exist: one is an optimistic path—Ethereum completes the migration of signatures and security stacks in phases over the next few years, forming a "quantum immune layer" that covers the mainnet, L2, and wallet ecosystems, and translates this capability into stronger security commitments for institutions and long-term capital; the other is a pessimistic path—quantum hardware breakthroughs exceed expectations, while public chain migrations lag, exposing systemic vulnerabilities of historical accounts and contracts under high-pressure testing, evolving into a "technical debt crisis" for public chains.
At the juncture of 2026, the subsequent evolution of NIST standards, the actual slope of the quantum hardware curve, and the trade-offs in Ethereum community governance between security and usability will collectively shape the difficulty and form of this upgrade path. For investors and developers, post-quantum security is no longer a niche topic but a critical dimension that cannot be overlooked when assessing the long-term value and risk resistance of a public chain. Ethereum's choice to initiate this "preliminary battle" five years in advance has also, in an intangible way, set a new security baseline for the entire industry.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
