Dominic Williams argues AI-driven cryptography risks deserve more attention than quantum threats
Dominic Williams, founder of the DFINITY Foundation, has called on cryptocurrency networks to focus more closely on the security risks artificial intelligence could pose to cryptography, arguing that the industry may be moving too quickly to adopt post-quantum encryption schemes while overlooking weaknesses that AI could expose.
In a post on X, Williams argued that the immediate challenge is not simply preparing for future quantum computers, but ensuring that the mathematical assumptions underpinning digital signatures and other cryptographic systems remain reliable as AI capabilities advance.
Cryptography protects blockchain networks by making it computationally impractical for attackers to forge digital signatures, access wallets without authorisation or steal digital assets. Many widely used systems rely on mathematical problems that are believed to be extremely difficult to solve with existing computing methods.
Williams warned that AI could help researchers discover weaknesses in those assumptions or develop more efficient ways to solve problems previously considered computationally infeasible. If such vulnerabilities were found, some cryptographic systems could require changes to maintain their security.
Williams also questioned the industry’s growing emphasis on post-quantum cryptography, which is designed to withstand attacks from future quantum computers. He argued that established schemes such as the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) have benefited from decades of scrutiny by researchers, while newer schemes have had less time to undergo public analysis.
That argument comes as AI-assisted cryptographic research produces new findings. In July 2026, Anthropic reported that its Claude Mythos Preview model had helped identify an improved attack against HAWK, a proposed post-quantum digital signature scheme. The attack weakened the scheme’s smallest parameter set, although Anthropic said the findings did not affect production systems or establish that post-quantum cryptography as a whole was broken.
The findings illustrate a challenge for developers choosing cryptographic systems: newer approaches need careful testing, but existing cryptography must also be assessed against advances in computing and mathematical analysis. The discovery of a weakness in one candidate does not establish that all post-quantum schemes are unsafe, just as years of scrutiny cannot guarantee that an established algorithm is free of flaws.
Williams also cited Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh, who has warned that a rushed transition to post-quantum systems could introduce software bugs and other implementation risks. The debate is therefore about how to prepare for future quantum threats without creating avoidable security problems during the transition.
Williams went further, alleging that some blockchain networks are promoting quantum-resistant technology to attract investment and support token prices, rather than solely to improve user security. He called on the leaders of networks making such claims to explain their technical reasoning, risk assessments and plans for protecting users. These are Williams’ allegations, rather than established evidence of the motives behind individual projects.
Post-quantum cryptography remains an active area of research and development because sufficiently capable quantum computers could threaten widely used public-key systems. At the same time, AI tools are becoming more capable of assisting researchers in testing cryptographic assumptions and finding weaknesses.
For blockchain developers, the challenge is to weigh both risks, assess the evidence behind new cryptographic methods and make security decisions based on independent review rather than marketing claims. Williams’ call for an open debate places that question at the centre of a wider discussion about how the industry should protect digital assets as computing technology advances.
Dear Reader,
Ledger Life is an independent platform dedicated to covering the Internet Computer (ICP) ecosystem and beyond. We focus on real stories, builder updates, project launches, and the quiet innovations that often get missed.
We’re not backed by sponsors. We rely on readers like you.
If you find value in what we publish—whether it’s deep dives into dApps, explainers on decentralised tech, or just keeping track of what’s moving in Web3—please consider making a donation. It helps us cover costs, stay consistent, and remain truly independent.
Your support goes a long way.
🧠 ICP Principal: ins6i-d53ug-zxmgh-qvum3-r3pvl-ufcvu-bdyon-ovzdy-d26k3-lgq2v-3qe
🧾 ICP Address: f8deb966878f8b83204b251d5d799e0345ea72b8e62e8cf9da8d8830e1b3b05f
Every contribution helps keep the lights on, the stories flowing, and the crypto clutter out.
Thank you for reading, sharing, and being part of this experiment in decentralised media.
—Team Ledger Life