Watching L1 founders revisit deployment assumptions and security models after re running the numbers.
Some constraints aren’t computational.
Recalculations in progress…
The curve is bending.
I think your holders should start evaluating alternatives. I’ve gone deep into the underlying stack with what’s available and not hidden from the public, and the cryptographic assumptions simply don’t appear to provide genuine post-quantum security. At this point, the claims look more like marketing terminology than a security model backed by the primitives actually running in production.
@mert You forgot to mention that #Quantova is building for the cryptographic future. In two weeks, I’m releasing my own post-quantum smart contract language, engineered from scratch with PQR primitives at its core.
Stay tuned @mert
I don’t report vulnerabilities to make money from bug bounties.
I report them because I believe security research should help strengthen the industry.
I find the flaw, document the risk, and disclose it responsibly.
My goal isn’t profit. It’s making the ecosystem harder to exploit.
I’ve identified multiple exploitable attack surfaces across protocols, from hardware wallets to decentralised exchanges, with several still lacking adequate mitigation.
Several months ago I identified and responsibly disclosed a security bug affecting components within the @GoogleResearch Cirq quantum SDK and the @IBM Qiskit quantum SDK. The report was submitted publicly through GitHub as part of a coordinated responsible disclosure process.
Quantum software stacks deserve the same level of scrutiny as any cryptographic infrastructure. The frameworks researchers depend on for quantum algorithm development, simulation, and validation are foundational to advancing post quantum cryptography. Strengthening these toolchains through responsible disclosure benefits the entire research community.
Security research is not only about designing new cryptographic systems.
It is also about auditing the software that underpins quantum computing.