As quantum computing continues to loom over the future of digital security, not everyone in the blockchain space believes rushing into quantum-resistant upgrades is the right move.
Charles Hoskinson has taken a more restrained position, arguing that the real challenge is not cryptography itself, but the cost of deploying it too soon.
Key Takeaways
Charles Hoskinson says quantum-resistant cryptography is available, but adopting it too early could damage blockchain performance.
He argues the real challenge is timing, as there is no clear timeline for when quantum computers become a practical threat.
Hoskinson believes networks must balance long-term security upgrades with today’s scalability and efficiency needs.
Rather than questioning whether blockchains can defend themselves against quantum attacks, Hoskinson has reframed the issue around practicality. In his view, the industry already has access to quantum-resistant tools. What remains uncertain is whether today’s networks can absorb the performance hit that comes with using them at scale.
Security comes at a measurable cost
Hoskinson points out that post-quantum cryptographic systems are far more demanding than the algorithms currently used across most blockchains. Larger signatures, heavier proofs, and slower verification are all part of the trade-off. If introduced prematurely, these features could sharply reduce transaction throughput and network efficiency, undermining usability long before quantum computers pose a real-world threat.
This creates a difficult balancing act for protocol designers. Strengthening security too early could mean sacrificing scalability, forcing validators and infrastructure providers to operate under far heavier computational loads without a clear near-term benefit.
The quantum clock is still unclear
One of the biggest unknowns shaping this debate is timing. While experts broadly agree that advanced quantum machines could one day break today’s cryptography, there is little agreement on when that day will arrive. Predictions range from the near future to well beyond the next decade.
Hoskinson has cautioned against taking optimistic projections from tech companies at face value. Instead, he highlights independent measurement efforts such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiative, which aims to determine whether quantum systems can achieve practical, real-world advantages over classical computers. Until such benchmarks are met, he argues, urgency should remain measured rather than reactionary.
Standards exist, readiness does not
The cryptographic building blocks themselves are no longer hypothetical. In 2024, the National Institute of Standards and Technology finalized post-quantum cryptography standards, signaling that the academic and technical groundwork is complete. From a purely technical perspective, blockchains could begin integrating these algorithms today.
However, Hoskinson stresses that standards alone do not equal readiness. Widespread adoption depends on hardware capabilities, validator incentives, and network economics – factors that cannot be upgraded overnight without consequences.
Different blockchains, different strategies
Across the industry, most major networks still rely on elliptic-curve cryptography, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and Cardano. This approach remains secure against classical computers but could eventually be compromised by quantum algorithms such as Shor’s.
Hoskinson notes that the industry already understands how to move away from this model, but consensus on the best replacement has yet to emerge. Ethereum is leaning toward hash-based cryptographic solutions, while Cardano is exploring lattice-based systems. Both offer quantum resistance, yet each comes with its own set of performance and complexity trade-offs.
Ultimately, Hoskinson’s message is less about alarm and more about sequencing. Quantum-resistant blockchains are inevitable, he suggests, but adopting them too early could weaken networks instead of protecting them. For now, the question is not whether blockchains must evolve, but how long they can afford to wait before the cost of inaction outweighs the cost of change.
