NeutralTRXTronTronBTCBitcoinBitcoinCOINCoinbaseCoinbaseETHEthereumEthereum

3w ago on

It could one day drain wallets by cracking the keys that protect them. Ethereum has a 2029 deadline, but Starknet might leave Ethereum to move faster. Here's where 9 of the biggest names in crypto stand: 1. $ETH: Targeting full quantum resistance by the end of 2029, covering wallets, validators, and the data layer the whole network runs on. It's also building a way for existing wallets to switch to quantum-safe signatures on their own schedule, so nobody gets forced to move funds all at once. 2. $BTC: Developers are working on proposals like BIP-360 to cut the risk from quantum attacks. The harder problem is lost coins. Millions of BTC sit in old wallets whose owners will never come back to upgrade, and deciding what happens to them is gonna be ugly. 3. $NEAR: Already supports quantum-resistant signatures through ML-DSA. You can upgrade your wallet's security without changing your address or moving your assets, which is a big deal if you've got money spread across DeFi. 4. $STRK: Wants to be fully quantum-resistant by 2027. Starknet wallets can already switch to new signature types on their own, but upgrading the network itself still means waiting on Ethereum. That's mainly why the team is considering becoming its own L1. Nothing's decided yet. 5. $QTC: Quantus went the other way. Instead of upgrading an existing chain, it launched in September with quantum-resistant signatures built in from day one, plus Bitcoin-style proof of work and a 21M supply. The tech is interesting, but it's a very young network that still has to prove it can attract real users. 6. $TRX: TRON has quantum-resistant signatures running on its testnet. @justinsuntron says they're ready to bring them to mainnet at any time. I'd watch for when regular users can actually use them. 7. $SUI: Just completed its first native quantum-safe transaction on devnet, using a signature system called ML-DSA-65. Mainnet support is targeted for early 2027. 8. $ZEC: Zcash is working toward quantum resistance through its Tachyon roadmap, and it has a harder job than most. It has to protect funds without breaking the privacy features people use it for, so swapping out wallet signatures won't cut it. 9. $COIN: Coinbase could matter just as much. They're working with Bitcoin developers and researchers on how to move existing BTC wallets to quantum-resistant security, and they've said the lost-coins question needs its own debate alongside that work. So how serious is the quantum threat? Today's computers can't realistically break the cryptography protecting Bitcoin and Ethereum wallets. A future quantum computer might by working backwards from a wallet's public key to its private key and draining the funds. Nobody knows when that becomes possible. And upgrading billions of dollars of crypto isn't something you do overnight. I think the most interesting opportunity here could be the infrastructure that helps existing chains upgrade. • NEAR users can change their security keys without moving their assets. • Starknet wallets can adopt new signature systems without waiting for a major network upgrade. • Then there are the teams doing migration work for existing chains, like Coinbase on the Bitcoin side. Personally, I'd check three things: 1. Is it live? A working mainnet and a roadmap promising 2027 are very different things. 2. Can people upgrade easily? Nobody wants to unwind their DeFi positions just to secure a wallet. 3. Does the token benefit? A chain getting more secure doesn't automatically make its token worth more. Run the list through the first two and $NEAR is the one name that clearly passes both right now. Everyone else is still on a roadmap or, in QTC's case, too new to be tested. Which project do you think is best positioned for the quantum era?

Quantum computing might be crypto's biggest threat. It could one day drain wallets by cracking the keys that protect them. Ethereum has a 2029 deadline, but Starknet might leave Ethereum to move faster. Here's where 9 of the biggest names in crypto stand: 1. $ETH: Targeting full quantum resistance by the end of 2029, covering wallets, validators, and the data layer the whole network runs on. It's also building a way for existing wallets to switch to quantum-safe signatures on their own schedule, so nobody gets forced to move funds all at once. 2. $BTC: Developers are working on proposals like BIP-360 to cut the risk from quantum attacks. The harder problem is lost coins. Millions of BTC sit in old wallets whose owners will never come back to upgrade, and deciding what happens to them is gonna be ugly. 3. $NEAR: Already supports quantum-resistant signatures through ML-DSA. You can upgrade your wallet's security without changing your address or moving your assets, which is a big deal if you've got money spread across DeFi. 4. $STRK: Wants to be fully quantum-resistant by 2027. Starknet wallets can already switch to new signature types on their own, but upgrading the network itself still means waiting on Ethereum. That's mainly why the team is considering becoming its own L1. Nothing's decided yet. 5. $QTC: Quantus went the other way. Instead of upgrading an existing chain, it launched in September with quantum-resistant signatures built in from day one, plus Bitcoin-style proof of work and a 21M supply. The tech is interesting, but it's a very young network that still has to prove it can attract real users. 6. $TRX: TRON has quantum-resistant signatures running on its testnet. @justinsuntron says they're ready to bring them to mainnet at any time. I'd watch for when regular users can actually use them. 7. $SUI: Just completed its first native quantum-safe transaction on devnet, using a signature system called ML-DSA-65. Mainnet support is targeted for early 2027. 8. $ZEC: Zcash is working toward quantum resistance through its Tachyon roadmap, and it has a harder job than most. It has to protect funds without breaking the privacy features people use it for, so swapping out wallet signatures won't cut it. 9. $COIN: Coinbase could matter just as much. They're working with Bitcoin developers and researchers on how to move existing BTC wallets to quantum-resistant security, and they've said the lost-coins question needs its own debate alongside that work. So how serious is the quantum threat? Today's computers can't realistically break the cryptography protecting Bitcoin and Ethereum wallets. A future quantum computer might by working backwards from a wallet's public key to its private key and draining the funds. Nobody knows when that becomes possible. And upgrading billions of dollars of crypto isn't something you do overnight. I think the most interesting opportunity here could be the infrastructure that helps existing chains upgrade. • NEAR users can change their security keys without moving their assets. • Starknet wallets can adopt new signature systems without waiting for a major network upgrade. • Then there are the teams doing migration work for existing chains, like Coinbase on the Bitcoin side. Personally, I'd check three things: 1. Is it live? A working mainnet and a roadmap promising 2027 are very different things. 2. Can people upgrade easily? Nobody wants to unwind their DeFi positions just to secure a wallet. 3. Does the token benefit? A chain getting more secure doesn't automatically make its token worth more. Run the list through the first two and $NEAR is the one name that clearly passes both right now. Everyone else is still on a roadmap or, in QTC's case, too new to be tested. Which project do you think is best positioned for the quantum era?

NeutralTRXTronTronAAVEARBArbitrumArbitrumAVAXAvalancheAvalancheBONKCRVCurve DAOCurve DAOETHEthereumEthereumETHFIether.fiether.fiGMXHYPEHyperliquidHyperliquidLDOLido DAOLido DAOLITLighterLighterNEARNEAR ProtocolNEAR ProtocolPOLPolygonPolygonPUMPPump.funPump.funRAYRaydiumRaydiumRUNESOLSolanaSolanaUNIUniswapUniswapWLFIWorld Liberty FinancialWorld Liberty Financial

10/6/2026 on

$STONK is up 513% in the last 30 days, but its revenue pace is down 34%. The SEC just made token buybacks a lot easier, so I wanted to know which protocols are actually earning more while their tokens lag behind. I checked 23 revenue tokens across 7 sectors and compared revenue pace to 30D price growth. Launchpads - https://t.co/f1pTxLVLNd: Revenue -34% | $STONK +513% - https://t.co/h9VveifpFO: Revenue -7% | $BONK +19% - https://t.co/xR4HP5omQ3: Revenue +34% | $PUMP +52% - Pons: Revenue -66% | $PONS -52% Chains - TRON: Revenue -3% | $TRX +2% - Polygon: Revenue +4% | $POL +13% - Avalanche: Revenue +51% | $AVAX +46% - Arbitrum: Revenue +20% | $ARB +54% DEXs - Curve: Revenue +69% | $CRV +5% - Raydium: Revenue -33% | $RAY +145% - Uniswap: Revenue -33% | $UNI +45% Perp DEXs - Hyperliquid: Revenue -12% | $HYPE +10% - Lighter: Revenue +3% | $LIT -16% - GMX: Revenue +47% | $GMX +13% Lending - Aave: Revenue -1% | $AAVE +38% - Sky: Revenue -1% | $SKY +39% - World Liberty: Revenue +4% | $WLFI -2% Cross-chain - THORChain: Revenue -5% | $RUNE +62% - Chainflip: Revenue +40% | $FLIP -26% - NEAR: Revenue +21% | $NEAR +125% Liquid staking - Lido: Revenue +5% | $LDO +22% - https://t.co/amwOX2ZI2i: Revenue +8% | $ETHFI +37% - Solv: Revenue +4% | $SOLV +32% A few of these tokens are pumping while the protocol makes less money. $STONK is the wildest, but $RAY and $UNI are doing it too: - $RAY: Revenue -33% | Price +145% - $UNI: Revenue -33% | Price +45% And a few are earning way more while the token barely moves: - $CRV: Revenue +69% | Price +5% - $GMX: Revenue +47% | Price +13% - $FLIP: Revenue +40% | Price -26% None of this means $CRV or $GMX has to go up. 30 days is a short window, and revenue only helps a buyback if it actually flows back to the token. But if I'm hunting for buyback plays, I'd start with the ones where revenue keeps climbing and price hasn't caught on yet. I'd rather dig into those than ape whatever token just announced a buyback. What revenue tokens are you watching right now?