Blockchain Quantum Readiness Index
Which chains survive a quantum computer?
How well do blockchains hold up against a quantum computer big enough to break today's elliptic-curve cryptography (ECC)? Each chain gets a stage. It moves up only when every check passes, and every rating cites public evidence. The scorer is open, so anyone can reproduce the results.
| Chain | Stage | Score | Rosette slices | Market cap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bitcoin L1 · UTXO |
Stage 0Not started | 13.8 | UCPBAM | $1.5T | |
| Ethereum L1 · EVM |
Stage 3Testnet | 40 | UCPBAM | $259B | |
| XRP Ledger L1 · XRPL |
Stage 1Committed | 16 | UCPBAM | $68.7B | |
| Solana L1 · Solana |
Stage 3Testnet | 33.3 | UCPBAM | $50.9B | |
| Stellar L1 · Stellar |
Stage 3Testnet | 36.7 | UCPBAM | $5.16B | |
| NEAR L1 · NEAR |
Stage 4Live option | 40.7 | UCPBAM | $4.6B | |
| Avalanche C-Chain L1 · EVM |
Stage 0Not started | 8 | UCPBAM | $3.58B | |
| Sui L1 · Move |
Stage 2Code merged | 20 | UCPBAM | $3.41B | |
| Hedera L1 · Hedera |
Stage 1Committed | 16 | UCPBAM | $2.98B | |
| Polkadot L1 · Substrate |
Stage 0Not started | 8 | UCPBAM | $1.47B | |
| Arbitrum One L2 · EVM |
Stage 3Testnet | 16.5 | UCPBAM | $1.22B | |
| Algorand L1 · Algorand |
Stage 4Live option | 40 | UCPBAM | $839M | |
| Cosmos Hub L1 · Cosmos SDK |
Stage 2Code merged | 26 | UCPBAM | $721M | |
| Aptos L1 · Move |
Stage 2Code merged | 17.3 | UCPBAM | $509M | |
| Starknet L2 · Cairo |
Stage 4Live option | 22 | UCPBAM | $299M | |
| Tezos L1 · Tezos |
Stage 3Testnet | 40 | UCPBAM | $278M | |
| OP Mainnet L2 · EVM |
Stage 1Committed | 12 | UCPBAM | $227M |
Slices: U user keys · C consensus · P proof system · B bridges · A admin keys · M migration. Wedge length = slice points (0–10). Sorted by market cap, not readiness. Chains under $100M market cap are not listed. Market cap: CoinGecko /simple/price (native or governance token market cap, USD), snapshot 2026-11-09. L2 governance tokens (ARB, OP, STRK) understate the value these chains secure. Unknown slices score zero; each chain page shows how much of its rating is researched and in scope.
Stages
Stages 0–4 track how far post-quantum user accounts have got. From Stage 5, users are actually protected: every requirement must pass, including an audit and an approved NIST standard.
Getting ready: Stages 0–4
Post-quantum user accounts have only been discussed, or not at all.
An official roadmap or accepted spec covers post-quantum user accounts.
Post-quantum user accounts are merged into the core code, but not yet on a public network (devnet at most).
Post-quantum user accounts run on a public testnet, or on mainnet without keeping funds at rest out of reach of ECC keys.
Users can hold funds on mainnet under a post-quantum key that no ECC key can override. Not yet audited, standard or backed by post-quantum consensus.
Protection begins: Stages 5–7
Users can keep funds where no ECC key can touch them and spend with an approved PQ mechanism on mainnet. The PQ code has a current audit, and PQ consensus is at least in development. L2s also need sound proofs and safe upgrade keys.
Consensus, bridges and admin keys are PQ or hybrid, or admin keys sit behind a long timelock with a PQ override. There is a dated migration plan and new accounts are PQ by default, unless ECC is already sunset. L2s also need live PQ proofs.
Existing accounts and contracts can migrate (or the chain never used ECC), and ECC is switched off: no ECC-only path can move material value.
Is your chain or protocol quantum-ready?
Get it assessed. We rate it with the same open method, show what is exposed, and map the steps to the next stage. LimeChain's engineers can then help you build them.
Get your chain assessedOpen, repeatable scoring. Non-zero ratings need public evidence; missing evidence means unknown. Methodology v0.4 · mechanism registry 2026-10-13.