When people start discussing whether quantum computing could threaten crypto assets, many immediately wonder: Could quantum computers crack wallets any day now?
It’s not that simple.
For now, quantum computing is still a long way from being able to break the cryptographic systems used by major blockchains at scale. But public blockchains cannot wait until the threat becomes real to start upgrading their security. Migrating any layer—wallets, signatures, cross-chain interactions, validator nodes, or consensus mechanisms—takes time.
So the race for quantum-resistant security is not really about who makes the boldest claims, but who can turn their technical approach into usable infrastructure sooner.
Today, let's look at two projects frequently mentioned by the market: **ZEC and NEAR.**
## ZEC: Post-quantum migration is more challenging in the privacy sector
Zcash, the project behind ZEC, has always centered its competitive edge on privacy technology. Its distinctive feature is shielded transactions: users can choose to hide the addresses of both parties and the transfer amount.
For this reason, addressing quantum security is more complex for ZEC than simply “switching to a different signature algorithm.”
Traditional addresses, shielded addresses, wallet compatibility, user asset migration, and the cryptographic structures behind privacy proofs may all need to be updated in stages. Public information indicates that the Zcash ecosystem is advancing post-quantum cryptography research and plans to prioritize strengthening the post-quantum signature capabilities of transparent transactions.
This means ZEC's path is more like a systematic security upgrade: first addressing the parts that are relatively easy to migrate, then gradually tackling the more complex issues in shielded transactions and the privacy proof system.
For ZEC, the real test is not announcing a roadmap, but whether existing users, wallets, and ecosystem applications can migrate smoothly in the future without compromising the original privacy experience as much as possible.
## NEAR: Post-quantum signatures are now becoming a mainnet capability
NEAR's approach is more focused on application infrastructure.
NEAR has been advancing chain abstraction, aiming to let users interact with on-chain products without having to constantly think about switching networks, gas tokens, or cross-chain routes. In this context, post-quantum security is not just about protecting one chain; the goal is to give a single account long-term signature security across multiple chains in the future.
NEAR has introduced support for ML-DSA signatures, based on NIST post-quantum cryptography standards. ML-DSA can be understood as a new digital signature scheme designed for future quantum risks, used to verify that “this operation was indeed authorized by the account”.
However, having account signatures available does not mean the entire network has completed its post-quantum upgrade.
A complete migration also involves validators, shard production, cross-chain signatures, wallet support, and the consensus layer. In other words, NEAR has moved “quantum resistance” from concept to mainnet functionality, but a great deal of engineering work remains before it covers the entire protocol and ecosystem.
## The biggest difference between the two is not the narrative, but the scope of migration
ZEC and NEAR are both working on post-quantum security, but their priorities differ:
- ZEC focuses on how to securely migrate a privacy protocol.
The more complex the privacy technology, the harder it is usually to upgrade. But if the migration succeeds, its security story will also stand out more clearly.
- NEAR focuses on the long-term security of accounts and interactions across multiple chains.
It places greater emphasis on keeping user accounts, signatures, and application experiences usable and secure in a multi-chain environment.
- Neither can yet be simply described as “fully quantum-resistant.”
Post-quantum signatures are only the first step. The real challenge is whether the protocol’s underlying layer, wallet ecosystem, user migration, and application compatibility can all advance in sync.
## When looking at quantum-related projects, don't focus on just one announcement
If you continue following ZEC and NEAR, it's worth focusing on three dimensions:
First, **is the technology on the roadmap, in testing, or already deployed on mainnet?**
The significance of features available on mainnet differs from that of research plans.
Second, **which layer does the upgrade protect?**
Does it cover only wallet signatures, or also cross-chain activity, validators, consensus, and privacy proofs? The broader the coverage, the greater the engineering challenge.
Third, **is the ecosystem actually integrating it?**
If wallets don't support it, users don't migrate, or applications aren't compatible, even the most advanced security technology will struggle to quickly translate into real-world utility.
Quantum security is not a narrative that can be validated in the short term, but it could become a fundamental dividing line in the competition among public blockchains in the future.
For ZEC, the market will be watching to see whether it can successfully combine privacy technology with post-quantum security. For NEAR, the market will be watching to see whether it can extend post-quantum signatures to a more complete multi-chain account system.
What is truly worth tracking over the long term is not which project is first to adopt the “quantum” label, but which one can enable users to complete a future-focused security migration with virtually no friction.
$NEAR #QuantumComputing #BlockchainSecurity #PublicBlockchains $ZEC
The above is for market analysis only and does not constitute investment advice.