A public dispute over Internet Computer’s token performance has broken out on X after crypto commentator Ash Crypto questioned what happened to ICP’s value since its 2021 peak.

Ash Crypto posted that a $10,000 investment in ICP at its peak five years ago would now be worth around $29, accompanying the post with a chart showing ICP falling from a reported high of about $750 to roughly $2.27. The post quickly drew a response from Dominic Williams, founder of DFINITY and one of the central figures behind the Internet Computer project.

Williams challenged the suggestion that the post was simply market commentary, accusing unnamed parties of paying influencers to publish negative material about ICP. He offered 7,500 ICP to anyone who could provide evidence of such payments.

Ash Crypto rejected the accusation and said there was no paid campaign behind the post. He acknowledged that other creators had subsequently repeated similar content, which he said created the impression of a coordinated effort. He maintained that the figures in his original post were factual and that the criticism was based on ICP’s historical price performance rather than fabricated claims.

The exchange highlights a long-running tension within the ICP community between arguments about the project’s technology and concerns over the token’s market performance. ICP reached a price of more than $700 in 2021 before undergoing a prolonged decline. The scale of that fall has continued to feature prominently in criticism of the project, particularly among traders focused on token returns.

Williams has increasingly pointed attention towards new uses for the Internet Computer, including Cloud Engines, which are designed as configurable ICP subnets that can be operated with selected node providers, locations and hardware. The project’s documentation presents Cloud Engines as a way of providing a traditional cloud-style experience while retaining the network’s on-chain infrastructure.

The debate therefore reflects two different ways of assessing ICP. One focuses heavily on the token’s historical price and the losses experienced by investors who bought near the 2021 peak. The other places greater weight on network development, new applications and potential future demand.

Another X user, HEROonchain, entered the discussion by arguing that institutional derivatives trading could be affecting ICP’s volume and liquidity. The commenter suggested that increased usage of ICP through Cloud Engines could eventually create more spot demand and put pressure on traders relying on derivatives. These claims were presented as opinion and were not accompanied by evidence establishing that institutions are deliberately manipulating ICP’s market.

Ash Crypto also pushed back against Williams’ offer of 7,500 ICP, saying the reward would not change the underlying price figures. He argued that a private message could have resolved the disagreement without the public confrontation.

The exchange leaves two separate questions on the table. The first is straightforward: ICP has fallen sharply from its 2021 peak, and that history is central to the criticism. The second is harder to answer: whether future development, network usage and new products can translate into sustainable demand for the token.

DFINITY has been positioning Cloud Engines and other developments as part of a broader effort to bring practical workloads and enterprise use to ICP. Its own materials say the Cloud Engine model is intended to align node-provider incentives with actual network usage, with a portion of revenue directed towards buying and burning ICP.

For now, the disagreement between Ash Crypto and Williams remains largely a dispute over interpretation. Ash Crypto is pointing to a price chart and the experience of investors who bought near the top. Williams is challenging the motives behind a wave of negative commentary and directing attention towards what he believes is coming next for the network.

Neither side’s broader claims about coordinated activity or market manipulation have been established by the exchange itself. What is clear is that ICP’s steep decline remains a sensitive subject for its community, even as development around the network continues.

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

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

Dominic Williams says development of an Open SaaS suite aimed at rethinking enterprise software has now passed 5,000 commits, as work continues towards a platform where AI-powered applications can be built, adapted and run on ICP cloud infrastructure.

Williams outlined the project in a post on X, describing the mission as creating an Open SaaS suite covering a broad range of enterprise applications. He said the idea is to reimagine familiar SaaS products as “AIware”, with the applications designed to be more capable, free to use, remixable and as easy to run on an ICP cloud engine as a phone application.

The project is being presented as an alternative approach to traditional enterprise software, where users typically access proprietary applications through subscription-based services. The proposed model puts greater emphasis on software that can be adapted and run within an ICP cloud environment.

Williams did not provide a launch date in the post, saying only that the project is “coming” after passing the 5,000-commit mark.

The Open SaaS concept has previously been linked to ICP’s broader work around cloud infrastructure and AI-powered application development. A recent report described the planned suite as a collection of on-chain services intended to allow users to customise SaaS applications with AI and run them through ICP cloud infrastructure.

The approach also reflects a wider shift in enterprise software towards AI-assisted applications. Instead of treating AI as an additional feature within existing SaaS products, the Open SaaS proposal envisages applications being built around AI from the outset.

Williams’ description also places emphasis on remixability. That could allow users or developers to modify existing applications for different requirements rather than starting new software projects from scratch.

The “free forever” proposition would further distinguish the planned suite from conventional SaaS models that generally rely on recurring subscriptions, although the practical terms of the offering and the applications that will be available have yet to be detailed.

The reference to ICP cloud engines suggests that the software is intended to run within dedicated cloud environments rather than depending solely on conventional centralised SaaS hosting. Details of pricing, availability, supported applications and the final architecture have not yet been announced.

For now, the 5,000-commit milestone provides an indication of ongoing development rather than a completed product release. Williams has not yet disclosed which enterprise applications will be included at launch or when users will be able to access the suite.

The project adds another element to ICP’s push towards AI-assisted software development and cloud services, with the focus now moving towards applications that users can potentially run, modify and reuse rather than simply access as conventional hosted software.

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

Dominic Williams has shared comments from renowned cryptographer Dan Boneh warning against rushing blockchain networks into post-quantum cryptography, highlighting the risks of making a rapid transition before new systems have been properly tested.

Williams posted Boneh’s remarks on X following a discussion about quantum computing, cryptography and the challenges facing blockchain networks as they prepare for future quantum threats.

Boneh argued that an aggressive move towards a post-quantum architecture by 2029 could be premature, warning that a rushed transition could introduce serious vulnerabilities.

“If you try to aggressively move to a postquantum architecture, like for example by 2029, I think that would be a mistake for the blockchain,” Boneh said. He added that a hasty transition could be more likely to cause a catastrophic bug than result in an attack by a quantum computer.

The comments come as blockchain developers and researchers consider how existing cryptographic systems should eventually be replaced with algorithms designed to withstand quantum attacks.

Boneh stressed that the quantum threat should not be ignored. He said the transition to post-quantum systems is likely to be difficult and take considerable time, meaning preparations need to begin early enough to allow the process to be carried out carefully.

The question is how much time the industry has. Boneh said he believes there are still many years before quantum computers are capable of posing a practical threat to current blockchain cryptography, with his own estimates extending beyond 2035. He acknowledged that other researchers take a more cautious position and favour earlier preparation.

Google’s security team has advocated a 2029 target for completing parts of the post-quantum transition. Boneh explained that this does not necessarily mean researchers expect a machine capable of breaking current cryptography to appear that year. Rather, an earlier deadline can provide additional time in case quantum computing develops faster than expected.

For blockchain networks, the timing presents two separate risks. Delaying the transition for too long could leave existing cryptographic systems exposed if quantum computing advances quickly. Moving too quickly, however, could introduce errors into software and infrastructure responsible for protecting users and assets.

Boneh’s warning focuses on the second risk. Replacing cryptographic systems across established networks requires extensive testing and coordination, and mistakes in the process could create vulnerabilities of their own.

The interview also examined estimates for the resources future quantum computers could require to attack current cryptographic systems. Boneh noted that estimates vary and that there is still debate around how quickly different quantum computing technologies will develop.

He compared the development of quantum computing with the history of aviation, pointing out that technological progress can accelerate once major engineering problems are solved. Boneh referred to the Wright brothers’ first flight in 1903 as an example of how quickly a technology can advance after an important breakthrough.

Boneh also pointed to recent progress in quantum error correction. He described Google’s 2024 Willow experiment, which demonstrated quantum error correction using 105 physical qubits, as an important development. He also referred to later research using neutral atoms to demonstrate quantum error correction techniques.

Despite those developments, Boneh questioned whether shorter migration deadlines would leave enough time for developers and users to make the transition safely. During the discussion, he described 2035 as a more reasonable deprecation target because it would give the industry greater time to prepare.

The discussion also considered alternative approaches that could provide additional protection while a broader transition takes place. One proposal involves a commit-delay-reveal mechanism, in which a commitment to a public key is placed on-chain before the actual public key is revealed.

Boneh described the approach as an interesting backup option, while noting that practical questions still need to be addressed around how such a system would operate.

Williams’ post brings attention to the broader issue of how blockchain networks should prepare for quantum computing without creating new security problems during the transition.

Boneh’s message is ultimately one of caution rather than inaction. Preparing for quantum threats may require years of work, but the process needs enough time for new cryptographic systems to be tested and deployed without introducing avoidable vulnerabilities.

The arrival date of a quantum computer capable of breaking widely used cryptography remains uncertain. The challenge for blockchain developers is preparing for that possibility while ensuring that the security measures introduced today do not create greater risks in the process.

Source: YouTube channel Isabel Foxen Duke

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