This week, while a16z Crypto released a quantum computing risk assessment report, the U.S. Congress has once again intensified its negotiations surrounding the cryptocurrency market structure bill. The parallel advancement of technology and regulation cannot be seen as a mere coincidence. Quantum computing is viewed as a long-term black swan with a "very low but non-zero" probability of disruptive CRQC capabilities emerging before 2030, whose destructive potential far exceeds that of traditional security incidents, yet seems to linger just beyond a decade. Concurrently, the U.S. is attempting to establish a regulatory framework that covers dollar-pegged tokens and trading infrastructure through an exchange registration system and bank-level regulation. These two forces of technological security and regulatory clarity are redefining the power dynamics of who controls the infrastructure and who defines the boundaries of asset security, setting a new countdown for the evolution of the cryptocurrency industry over the next decade.
The 2030 Quantum Clock is Delayed: Risks Shift from Doomsday Narratives to Engineering Issues
● Probability Scale Rewritten: Based on a single source citation, a16z points out that the probability of CRQC capable of breaking modern mainstream cryptographic systems appearing before 2030 is "very low but non-zero," suggesting that the long-held industry belief in a "2030 quantum deadline" is more of a media-driven time anchor than an engineering consensus timeline. The risk has not disappeared but has been extended to a timeframe that resembles engineering planning rather than a doomsday countdown, requiring systematic responses at the protocol design and roadmap levels.
● Urgency Comparison Imbalance: Compared to quantum risks, the main security threats currently faced by public chains remain traditional attack vectors such as contract vulnerabilities, private key leaks, and implementation errors, which often complete their attack loops within minutes to hours, directly causing asset losses. Quantum threats, on the other hand, approach as slow changes in underlying parameters measured in years, creating a natural misalignment in urgency and resource allocation for addressing "today's imminent issues" versus "potentially fatal future risks," becoming a real choice for developers and security teams.
● Discrepancy Between Narrative and Reality: The extreme narrative of "once quantum arrives, Bitcoin will go to zero" has been amplified over the past few years to explain various macro fears and technological pessimism, but in the absence of engineering details, it resembles an emotional doomsday imagination. A16z's assessment brings this narrative back to the dimensions of probability and time: the risk does exist, but it is neither an imminent flash crash event that will happen tomorrow morning nor a sci-fi scenario that can be indefinitely ignored, but rather an engineering variable that needs to be incorporated into long-term protocol upgrade plans.
● Slow Drift of Underlying Parameters: From a16z's perspective, quantum risk is more akin to network bandwidth, hardware computing power, and cryptographic assumptions—fundamental conditions that change slowly over time, rather than a single catastrophic event. For developers, this means viewing quantum as a threat of "gradual erosion": today's systems remain usable in the foreseeable future, but security margins will be continuously compressed as quantum technology evolves, forcing protocols to undergo global migration and upgrades at some point in the future, rather than waiting for a specific "tipping point" to arrive.
Privacy Chains Exposed Under the HNDL Crosshairs
● HNDL Attack's Time Arbitrage Logic: The HNDL-type quantum attacks mentioned by a16z essentially represent a cross-temporal "laying mines and then detonating" strategy: attackers are not in a hurry to break any encryption now but are massively hoarding data traffic currently protected by strong encryption, waiting for a future point when quantum computing capabilities are sufficient to decrypt and then opening the "data black box" all at once. This attack model maximizes the delayed power of quantum advantages, making today's seemingly secure communications and transactions potentially vulnerable in the future.
● Privacy Chains' Priority Exposure: Under this attack model, those long-term, large-scale storage of encrypted transaction data privacy chains naturally stand in the spotlight. The transaction concealment and anonymity provided by privacy chains rely on strong cryptographic guarantees; however, because this data is fully retained on-chain, HNDL attackers can "risk-free" package and collect it at the current stage, waiting for the moment of quantum decryption to strip away historical transaction associations, asset flows, and address identities all at once, making privacy chains prime targets for quantum attacks.
● Current Security Boundaries of Public Chain Accounts and zkSNARKs: In contrast to privacy chains, a16z's assessment mentions that the digital signature and zkSNARKs structure of ordinary public chain account systems are not easily breached under the current HNDL paradigm. The reason is that the data hoarded by attackers may not directly lead to the derivation of private keys or compromise the completeness of the proof system under future quantum conditions, granting non-privacy public chains and current zero-knowledge applications a time window. However, this does not mean that preparations can be neglected; rather, it indicates that they are not in the first tier of priority in the HNDL ranking.
● Reordering of Defense Priorities: In this quantum threat landscape, defense priorities are being redefined: the primary task is to protect systems that carry long-term confidential data and are highly sensitive to privacy, followed by large-scale migrations concerning asset ownership and account control. In other words, the pressing question today is: which data, if decrypted in ten years, would result in irreparable losses? Establishing anti-quantum defenses around these scenarios is more realistic than hastily pushing for a "one-size-fits-all" signature system switch across the entire network.
Premature Embrace of Anti-Quantum: The Paradox of Security Upgrades and New Risks
● Engineering Costs of Hasty Switches: A16z clearly warns that premature, comprehensive switches to anti-quantum cryptographic solutions pose a real risk. Next-generation anti-quantum algorithms often come with larger signature sizes and higher computational overhead, directly dragging down on-chain performance. Additionally, immature implementations can easily introduce new vulnerabilities, opening another door for attackers. For mainstream public chains that pursue extreme performance and stability, this choice of sacrificing current usability for "future defense" is neither economical nor may it yield the desired results.
● Coordination Challenges in Large Public Chain Upgrades: The history of Bitcoin and Ethereum has proven that achieving broad coordination at the consensus rules and client implementation levels is a social engineering challenge measured in years. Whether through multiple soft forks in Bitcoin or Ethereum's transition from PoW to PoS, developers, node operators, application parties, and token holders need to slowly adapt. Promoting a global cryptographic upgrade on quantum issues means replicating or even amplifying this coordination difficulty, and in the absence of urgent time pressure, parties are more likely to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
● The Game of Responsibility and Time: From the perspective of developers and protocol maintainers, there exists a significant tension between "switching now" and "waiting until it really arrives." Premature switching, if it leads to security incidents due to performance or implementation flaws, will directly point responsibility to the party making the upgrade decision; delaying the switch, if quantum capabilities exceed expectations, will lead to accusations of failing to fulfill forward-looking due diligence and defense obligations. This dual accountability pressure leads many projects to choose to lay out research and experimentation while maintaining restraint at the mainnet level.
● Gradual Anti-Quantum Pathways: Within the framework outlined by a16z, a more realistic route is to identify high-value, high-privacy scenarios and pilot anti-quantum solutions first, accumulating operational experience and performance data in localized environments. For instance, introducing anti-quantum mechanisms in key governance private keys, long-term custodial assets, and sensitive identity credentials while maintaining the status quo of core transaction paths on the mainnet. This "modular upgrade" approach lays the technical and governance foundation for a potential future global migration without triggering system-level shocks.
Washington Builds the Track: Exchanges and Dollar-Pegged Tokens Pulled into the Same Framework
● Dual Core of the Market Structure Bill: The current U.S. push for a cryptocurrency market structure bill aims to provide a systematic framework for this asset class at the federal level. Two frequently mentioned pillars are: implementing a registration system for exchanges and enforcing near-bank-level high-intensity regulation on dollar-pegged tokens. The former seeks to set a unified entry threshold for trading and custody services, while the latter aims to bring this type of token into the purview of financial stability and payment security, preventing it from drifting outside traditional regulatory frameworks.
● Reshaping Exchange Entry Thresholds: Once the registration system is implemented, centralized exchanges will no longer be seen merely as "technical service providers" but will be regarded as licensed financial infrastructure. This means that the asset listing process, internal controls and risk management capabilities, customer asset segregation, and disclosure obligations will all be scrutinized under a magnifying glass. For leading platforms, while compliance costs will rise, they may also hope to clean up the competitive environment through higher thresholds; smaller platforms will face the survival choice of either "evolving into regulated financial institutions" or being marginalized or even forced out of the market.
● Banking Constraints on Dollar-Pegged Tokens: The "bank-level regulation" discussed in the bill refers to a comprehensive strengthening of issuer qualifications, reserve asset security and transparency, and risk disclosure mechanisms. Under this framework, issuers of dollar-pegged tokens will need to assume obligations closer to those of deposit-taking financial institutions: from reserve asset allocation to liquidity management, and even to extreme scenario liquidation plans, all will be subject to regulatory scrutiny. This not only helps enhance the acceptance of such assets within the traditional financial system but also compresses the gray area of "opaque arbitrage."
● Spillover Effects of the U.S. Framework: If the U.S. takes the lead in refining this market structure bill into a systematic regulatory framework, it is likely to become an important reference for other jurisdictions around the world when formulating rules. Whether in defining exchange business models or characterizing the risks of dollar-pegged tokens, these will spill over to Europe, Asia, and other regions through cross-border business and capital flows. This "regulatory first-mover advantage" will position Washington more proactively in the future discourse on cryptocurrency governance.
On-Chain Freedom and Regulatory Red Lines: CEX and DeFi Segregated into Different Jurisdictions
● CEX Under the Licensing System: From the current discussions of the bill, centralized exchanges will be directly incorporated into the licensing and review system, with their operations, asset custody, and user protection all needing to meet clear compliance requirements. For these institutions with legal entities and office addresses, regulation can impose constraints through traditional means such as registration, annual inspections, fines, and even criminal liability, making them a relatively controllable interface layer between traditional capital and crypto assets.
● The Non-Registerability of DeFi: In stark contrast, DeFi protocols characterized by open-source code and anonymous governance are difficult to simply fit into a "registration system" framework. Who acts as the registration entity? Who bears legal responsibility for contract risks? How to regulate DAO voting and parameter modifications? These questions currently lack direct answers. Code can be deployed and replicated on any server globally, and developers can maintain a high degree of anonymity, making traditional licensing logic ineffective in the DeFi world.
● Division of Labor Between Bridges and Margins: In this reality conflict, a possible mid-term landscape is that compliant CEXs become the main bridge for regulated assets and traditional funds, while unregistered DeFi is pushed to the high-risk, high-freedom margins. Compliant funds enter and exit the crypto world through licensed exchanges, enjoying clear investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms; meanwhile, users willing to bear higher technical and regulatory uncertainties seek returns and leverage in the more free DeFi ecosystem. This layered structure has already begun to take shape in some markets.
● Modular Compliance and Geographic Arbitrage: Amid the intertwining variables of quantum risk, privacy demands, and regulatory pressure, protocol parties may be forced to explore multiple pathways of modular compliance and geographic arbitrage. On one hand, introducing KYC, risk control, and audit-friendly interfaces in the entry modules aimed at compliant funds will embed parts of the protocol's business into the regulated framework; on the other hand, keeping high privacy, high leverage, and even experimental features on-chain in "non-U.S." or "non-compliant" areas will allow for strategic layouts utilizing the regulatory temperature differences of different jurisdictions. This structured design will also determine which protocols can remain in the mainstream capital view without sacrificing all on-chain freedom.
Quantum Distant Fire and Regulatory Close Flame: A Triple Checklist for Developers
The timeline of quantum threats being extended does not mean it can be removed from the agenda. The current consensus is forming: new generation protocols must incorporate anti-quantum capabilities into their cryptographic and governance architecture considerations from the early design stage, rather than hastily catching up when quantum capabilities approach. At the same time, the enhancement of regulatory clarity provides traditional capital with a predictable compliance path, reducing the discount caused by the "policy black box"; on the other hand, it also objectively compresses the space for disorderly innovation and regulatory arbitrage, pushing some innovative activities in the industry towards more concealed and higher-risk marginal areas. In the coming years, the main storyline of the industry will revolve around a three-party game: the speed and direction of technological stack iteration, the gradual clarification of regulatory boundaries, and the repricing of capital risk preferences under new risk awareness, with each influencing and reinforcing the others.
For project teams and investors, what needs to be completed now is a three-part checklist: first, protocol upgrade capability checklist—assessing their governance and execution capabilities in consensus modification, cryptographic replacement, and client synchronization, and evaluating whether they can complete a system-level migration when necessary; second, compliance path checklist—clarifying the legal positioning of their business under potential regulatory frameworks and anticipating the licenses, disclosures, and risk control requirements that need to be fulfilled in the future; third, data exposure checklist under quantum risk—identifying which data in the protocol and products, if decrypted in ten years, would constitute a fatal blow, and adjusting privacy designs and encryption strategies accordingly. As the quantum distant fire remains on the horizon and the regulatory close flame approaches, those who can complete this triple self-assessment earlier are more likely to gain the upper hand in the next round of power restructuring.
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。
