On January 24, 2026, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) officially elevated quantum resistance to a strategic priority: establishing a Post-Quantum team led by Thomas Coratger with assistance from Emile, initiating bi-weekly developer meetings and planning for a multi-client testnet, and allocating $2 million in cryptographic prizes to invite the world to "attack and defend" Ethereum's security boundaries. This series of actions brought a threat that was originally considered "far off" into the Ethereum engineering agenda, and the core conflict became clear: the unknown curve of quantum computing power evolution is racing against the defense window of public key cryptography and on-chain asset security. Whoever presents a credible, actionable quantum-resistant roadmap first in this race will have the opportunity to rewrite the entire industry's security narrative and secure a higher "security premium" in long-term valuations. Ethereum's current initiative is essentially a bet: when global assets seek new safe havens in the future, they will remember who first treated security as a strategic issue today.
Countdown to Quantum Threat: The Invisible Cracks in Cryptographic Security
● The fatal flaw of the account system: Today, the vast majority of blockchain accounts are built on public key cryptography, which simply means "using a mathematically difficult problem that is extremely hard for ordinary computers to exhaustively solve" to protect your private keys and assets. Once quantum computing achieves breakthroughs in specific algorithms, it could compress this "astronomical level of exhaustive difficulty" into an operable time scale, meaning that all historically exposed public key addresses could be vulnerable to hostile quantum power. This is not a vulnerability of a single project, but a common risk across the entire cryptographic foundation.
● The turning point in time perception: For the past decade, the mainstream attitude in the industry towards quantum threats has been "we'll deal with it in a few decades," leaning towards a distant topic in investment and R&D priorities. However, the EF's direct establishment of the Post-Quantum team and engineering planning in 2026 is actually sending a signal to the community: even if no one can provide an exact timeline for quantum computing breakthroughs, the defenders can no longer leave this matter in papers and conferences; instead, they must proactively leave room for transformation in the protocol layer, clients, and toolchains, shifting the psychological timeline from "a problem for future generations" to "something to be done within this cycle."
● The background noise of global safe haven narratives: On the same timeline, gold prices rose by 64% in 2025, marking the highest annual increase since 1979, while the dollar's share in global foreign exchange reserves fell below 60%. These data points collectively outline that the credit of traditional fiat currencies is being gradually diluted, akin to a frog being boiled in water, and sovereign backing is not an absolute safe haven. The new highs in gold and the decline in the dollar's share are macro annotations of global capital reassessing "trust carriers." If crypto networks are to accommodate this portion of safe haven demand, their underlying security assumptions cannot have invisible cracks that could be torn open by quantum threats.
● Seizing the high ground in the quantum resistance narrative: In this broader context, whoever can first provide a roadmap from research to engineering and then to ecological migration for quantum resistance will have the opportunity to be seen as a candidate for the "next generation global asset safe haven." The competition here is not just about TPS, transaction fees, and application ecosystems, but also about "trustworthy commitments that remain verifiable, transferable, and custodial in the quantum era." Networks that clearly articulate their timelines and engineering paths will gain more voice in the next round of safe haven competition between sovereign assets, gold, and digital assets.
The Foundation Takes Action: Team, Testnet, and $2 Million Prize Pool
● Formation of the Post-Quantum team: According to information disclosed on January 24, 2026, the EF established a dedicated Post-Quantum team, led by Thomas Coratger for overall advancement, with Emile providing technical and coordination support. This marks that quantum resistance is no longer just an interest of a few researchers, but has been elevated to a long-term engineering project with clear responsibilities, resources, and goals. The existence of the team itself provides a stable expectation for the ecosystem: this is not an isolated proposal, but a main line written into the foundation's roadmap.
● Transition from documentation to client implementation: The EF is simultaneously planning bi-weekly developer meetings and a multi-client testnet, indicating that quantum resistance work will not remain at the level of standard documents and research reports, but will be implemented, interoperated, and stress-tested in actual clients. The premise of a multi-client approach is that all major implementations must run consistency and performance evaluations under the new cryptographic assumptions. This step will transform abstract security discussions into engineering facts that can be practically verified by developers and adapted by toolchains.
● The "siege effect" of the $2 million prize pool: The EF has allocated $2 million in cryptographic prizes, issuing an open invitation to global cryptographers and security researchers to encourage them to attack, improve, and theoretically expand Ethereum's quantum resistance solutions and implementations. The role of the prize pool lies not in the absolute amount of the prize itself, but in concentrating the cutting-edge research forces originally scattered across academia and industry towards a common goal through economic incentives, making Ethereum the main battlefield for "siege testing" in quantum defense, prioritizing the exposure of problems and the iteration of solutions.
● Transitioning from research to roadmap-level upgrades: EF researcher Justin Drake explicitly stated that the work is "shifting from research to engineering implementation." The implication of this statement is to upgrade quantum resistance from "optional optimization" to "protocol roadmap-level change." When research issues are written into clients, testnets, and prize pools, they are no longer a "pet project," but a systematic upgrade that could potentially impact future signature mechanisms, key management, and even user migration paths. This is why this round of actions feels more like a prelude to a paradigm shift in security rather than minor adjustments to existing protocols.
2026 Highlighted: The Time Anchor Provided by Ethereum
● The spotlight on 2026: In official information, the EF plans to hold multiple community events related to quantum resistance in 2026, in conjunction with the advancement of the multi-client testnet. This concretely anchors a previously vague "future security issue" to a specific year for the first time. For developers and institutions, 2026 is no longer an abstract distant date, but a series of offline and online events, testing nodes, and discussion windows that will revolve around "how to complete system upgrades in the face of quantum threats."
● From no timeline to a phased engineering timeline: Previously, discussions about quantum threats in the industry often lingered at the level of "it will have to be solved someday," with few projects providing specific milestones to be completed in any given year. This time, the EF has broken down quantum resistance work into a predictable phased timeline through team, testnet, and event planning, which means that ecosystem participants can arrange their wallet solutions, contract designs, and asset custody paths accordingly. Security is no longer a temporary patch but is incorporated into the rhythm of product and protocol evolution.
● Transitioning from theoretical solutions to ecological consensus: The multi-client testnet and community activities before and after 2026 will practically complete a transition from "academically feasible" to "ecologically willing to follow." The testnet can verify the real impact of different quantum resistance solutions on performance, costs, and developer experience, while community activities will provide scenarios for discussion and collaborative migration for wallets, exchanges, L2, and application projects, helping the ecosystem form factual consensus around the 2026 node: what route to adopt, how to transition gradually, and how to smoothly migrate user assets.
● The spillover effect of factual standards: Once Ethereum establishes a de facto quantum resistance standard around the 2026 node, in collaboration with the testnet and community, its spillover effect will far exceed the chain itself. Other public chains that wish to continue sharing liquidity with Ethereum, bridging assets, or adopting similar designs will inevitably face pressure regarding "whether to be compatible with Ethereum's quantum resistance path." Financial institutions reassessing their risk exposure in the face of quantum threats may also passively use Ethereum's solutions as a reference to adjust their custody and settlement infrastructure, following Ethereum's path to reduce future incompatibility costs.
Interwoven Safe Haven Narratives: New Highs in Gold and Ethereum's Role
● The vivid imagery of the macro story: The 64% astonishing increase in gold in 2025, combined with the dollar's reserve share falling below 60%, creates a clear picture: the risk-free interest rates and sovereign credit under the traditional fiat currency system are being continuously eroded by inflation, geopolitical issues, and fiscal deficits. Gold's role as the "ultimate safe haven asset" is once again reinforced, but its physical properties, settlement efficiency, and ability to interface with the modern financial system limit its programmability and combinability in the digital age.
● Ethereum in the new dollar layer: In this broader environment, Liquid Capital founder Yi Lihua posits that "the biggest beneficiary of stablecoin globalization is Ethereum," pointing to another dimension: an increasing number of cross-border payments, asset allocations, and on-chain financial activities are packaging dollar credit within on-chain contracts and tokens, and Ethereum remains one of the core infrastructures in this process. It carries not just applications and transaction volumes, but is building a "new dollar layer," providing programmable dollar exposure and settlement channels for global capital.
● Reflexive risks under quantum threats: However, if this layer that carries dollar credit and cross-border settlements lacks technical security guarantees in the quantum era, the narrative of "digital safe haven assets" could reverse—once the public key system is compromised, on-chain dollars and asset accounts become potential soft spots, and funds may be forced to flow back to more traditional systems that have higher thresholds for computational attacks or stronger isolation. In other words, technical security is not only part of the credibility of on-chain dollars but is also a prerequisite for whether it can provide "additional security and efficiency" compared to traditional systems.
● Quantum resistance as a prerequisite for the safe haven baton: Therefore, as gold reaffirms its position as the "ultimate safe haven" in price, if Ethereum wants to catch part of the "safe haven baton" from fiat currencies and gold in the next round of global asset reallocation, it must first answer a question: in the era of quantum computing, can on-chain dollars, bonds, and various asset certificates still be safely held and settled on Ethereum? Quantum resistance thus becomes not just an interest point for protocol engineers, but a necessary condition for Ethereum to upgrade to a "digital sovereign carrier" in the new round of global trust system reconstruction.
Short-term Price Pressure: The Dislocation of ETF Funds and Long-term Security Premium
● The cold cash picture of ETH ETFs: Just as the EF announced the upgrade of its quantum resistance strategy, spot ETH ETFs have seen net outflows for four consecutive days (as of January 24 data), creating a stark contrast on the narrative level: on one side, the foundation is accelerating security engineering, while on the other, secondary market funds are continuously exiting through ETF channels. For ordinary investors, what they may see is just the direct picture of ETH prices under pressure on the quote screen, with off-market funds choosing to wait and even reduce their positions.
● The reasons for the natural discount on long-term narratives: The market's discounting of long-term narratives like "quantum resistance" is driven by several structural reasons: first, the engineering path is full of uncertainties, and no one can predict which solution will become the final standard; second, the return realization cycle is extremely long, with no immediate improvements in user experience and costs, and it may even lead to increased costs; third, the quantum threat itself has not been materialized in real attack events, and for most funds, it remains just a risk item on a PPT, rather than a significant variable in asset pricing models.
● How security engineering reshapes valuation models: If Ethereum achieves phased breakthroughs in quantum resistance engineering practices in the coming years, forming migration plans across clients, wallets, and custodial institutions, and is regarded as a "feasible and executable" standard by mainstream institutions, this elevation of security margins will have the opportunity to be re-included in ETH's long-term valuation model. At that time, the so-called "security premium" will no longer be just an abstract label, but will be specifically reflected in improvements in a series of observable variables such as regulatory friendliness, institutional allocation ratios, and preferences for high-value on-chain assets.
● The contrast between cold data and hot engineering: The current contradiction lies in the fact that both the ETF outflows and the price curve convey cold signals, as if the market's interest in Ethereum is cooling; meanwhile, at the protocol and foundation levels, quantum security engineering has entered a decisive acceleration phase. Short-term funds focus on the next quarter's Beta and yield curves, while security engineering points to survival probabilities over one or several future cycles. This temporal misalignment is a pain point that every round of infrastructure upgrades experiences and is one of the few windows that leave "discounted long-term options" for long-term participants.
From Engineering Warfare to Narrative Power: Ethereum's Quantum Era Bet
At the beginning of 2026, the EF clearly upgraded quantum security to a strategic engineering initiative, marking its choice to proactively seize the technological and narrative high ground in the countdown to quantum threats: a dedicated team, a multi-client testnet, a $2 million prize pool, and the 2026 time anchor together form a path from research to engineering and then to ecological collaboration. For an infrastructure that carries a large amount of dollar and asset settlement activities globally, this is not just "security reinforcement," but a preemptive battle around the reconstruction of the next-generation trust system.
In the coming years, whether this path can be successfully navigated depends on at least three key variables: first, the performance and cost of quantum resistance solutions—the trade-offs between signature size, verification speed, and on-chain resource consumption will determine whether it can be widely adopted without sacrificing user experience; second, compatibility with the existing ecosystem—how wallets, contracts, and L2 can achieve smooth upgrades without forcing a "hard migration" is a dual challenge of technology and governance; third, the speed of community consensus formation—spreading from the researcher circle to application developers, institutional custodians, and ordinary users requires time and educational costs, with 2026 set as a critical convergence point.
For investors and developers, it may be necessary to adopt a thinking framework different from daily price fluctuations: viewing quantum security as a "long-term option embedded within ETH," examining the chain's survival and evolutionary capabilities on a ten-year scale, beyond short-term liquidity and regulatory variables. Price noise may amplify short-cycle emotions, but what truly determines the network's fate is often these seemingly abstract yet practically impactful engineering decisions that can change security boundaries.
If the real threat of quantum computing arrives sooner than expected, there will be two types of participants at the table: one type has already laid out executable answers in clients, protocols, and toolchains, needing only to accelerate migration along the established path; the other type remains stuck in white papers and conference speeches, describing security visions in the future tense. Ethereum's bet today is precisely to become the former type of network.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits 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。
