Six chains, four questions each, scored on what would actually stand if a large quantum computer existed — not on what is claimed. Assessed 7 August 2026. This is a dated snapshot; roadmaps move and the date is the point.
Disclosure: the author of this site builds OZO Hub, a project on Ozone Chain, which appears in the table below. Ozone is therefore scored at the strictest reading of its own claims. It does not come out well. Full disclosure here.
| Chain | What signs user transactions | Consensus signatures | Default or opt-in | Dated migration plan | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QRL | XMSS, hash-based (RFC 8391) | Hash-based throughout | Default, since June 2018 | Not needed for signatures; QRL 2.0 uses ML-DSA-87 | Post-quantum |
| Algorand | Ed25519 by default; Falcon available | Classical | Opt-in for accounts | Yes – stated target of broad resilience by 2027 | Partial, shipping |
| Solana | Ed25519 | Classical | One opt-in hash-based vault, community built | None located | Classical |
| Ozone Chain | secp256k1 – same curve as Ethereum | secp256k1 (QBFT) | One opt-in hash-based vault, built by this site’s author | None located | Classical |
| Ethereum | secp256k1 | BLS12-381 | Classical throughout | Yes – team formed Jan 2026, target around 2029 | Classical, planning |
| Bitcoin | ECDSA / Schnorr | Proof of work (hash-based) | Classical throughout | Drafts only – BIP-360, BIP-361 | Classical, drafts |
Green: post-quantum signatures are the default. Amber: real post-quantum machinery exists but accounts still default to classical. Red: user funds are secured by elliptic-curve signatures that Shor’s algorithm breaks.
- What algorithm signs user transactions – name and parameters?
- Is it hash-based or lattice-based (good), or elliptic-curve (not)?
- Is it the default, or an opt-in tool covering a sliver of funds?
- Is there a dated, public migration plan for everything still classical?
Certifications of randomness, “quantum tunnels”, partnerships and the word “first” answer none of these.
Two rows that deserve explaining
Ozone Chain markets itself as the “world’s first quantum resistant blockchain”. Apply question 1 and the answer is secp256k1, for both validators and every user account, because it is an EVM chain built on stock Hyperledger Besu. Its quantum claims concern the network layer — encrypted inter-node traffic, quantum random number generation, a certification — which we could not verify from primary technical documentation, and which in any case defend the wrong asset. Encrypting traffic between nodes does nothing against an attacker forging account signatures, and forging signatures is how funds are stolen.
Bitcoin scores red despite proof of work being hash-based. Mining is not the exposure; signatures are. Roughly a third of supply sits behind revealed public keys, including around 1.7 million likely-unmovable Satoshi-era coins. The gap between the size of that exposure and the pace of the response is, in our judgment, the largest honesty gap in the industry — larger than any marketing claim, because it is measured in coins rather than words.
What this means for your own holdings
Duller than the headlines: no wallet you can buy makes your Bitcoin or Ethereum quantum-safe, because the exposure lives on the chain rather than in your pocket. A device can only produce signatures the network will accept, and the networks accept elliptic-curve signatures.
That includes hardware marketed on post-quantum credentials. The Trezor Safe 7 genuinely ships SLH-DSA-128, and it genuinely cannot protect your BTC — a distinction covered in the comparison.
What you can control is everything in seed phrases and scams — which is also what will actually cost you money this decade. If you want the underlying cryptography rather than the scores, start with what a quantum computer could actually break.