DFINITY founder Dominic Williams has criticised what he describes as a rush to adopt new quantum-safe cryptography, warning that developers and investors should be cautious about technologies that have not been thoroughly tested.
In a post on X, Williams coined the acronym “PANIQ”, short for “Premature Adoption of Novel, Insufficiently-vetted Quantum-safe cryptography”. He used the term to question the growing focus on so-called quantum-safe networks and suggested that some projects may be moving faster than the underlying research warrants.
Williams also directed followers towards a list of projects and discussions around quantum-safe technology, including searches related to Sui, while arguing that research and development budgets should be directed towards technologies with stronger technical foundations rather than following emerging narratives.
His comments come as the threat posed by future quantum computers is receiving increasing attention across the digital asset industry. Quantum computers powerful enough to break widely used public-key cryptography do not currently exist, but researchers and protocol developers have been working on post-quantum cryptography as a way of preparing for that possibility.
The debate is not over whether quantum computing could eventually affect existing cryptographic systems. The more immediate question is how and when networks should transition to new algorithms, and which approaches are mature enough for deployment.
Sui, one of the networks referenced indirectly by Williams’ post, has publicly discussed this issue. Its developers have said the network was designed with cryptographic agility in mind, allowing cryptographic components to be changed as standards and security requirements develop. Sui has also published research on possible approaches to post-quantum security and the trade-offs involved in different cryptographic schemes.
The Internet Computer community has been having a similar discussion. A DFINITY forum response on the long-term quantum security of ICP said the network currently relies on several discrete-logarithm-based signature schemes, including BLS, ECDSA, EdDSA and Schnorr. It also stated that ICP was designed with cryptographic agility, allowing its cryptographic schemes to be replaced when required.
That does not mean the issue has been ignored. A recent developer request in the Internet Computer community sought engineers to work on a post-quantum cryptography backend capable of verifying NIST-approved algorithms, indicating that research and development around the subject is already taking place.
The wider technical challenge is that replacing established cryptography is not as simple as selecting a newer algorithm. New schemes can introduce different performance, storage and implementation requirements, while their security assumptions need to withstand sustained academic and practical scrutiny.
Sui’s own research notes that there are trade-offs between proof size, verification speed and quantum resistance in some cryptographic constructions, and that no current construction meets every desired property for advanced zero-knowledge systems at once.
Williams’ criticism therefore centres on timing and confidence rather than the existence of the quantum computing threat itself. His use of “PANIQ” reflects a broader concern in technology markets, where the arrival of a new technical narrative can sometimes encourage projects to announce solutions before the underlying methods have been extensively tested.
For networks that may need to remain operational for decades, however, waiting until quantum computers become an immediate threat could carry its own risks. Preparing for a transition requires research, testing and careful consideration of how existing users, keys and applications would be migrated.
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
Community Discussion