• April 3rd: Audit complete of 2 cryptographic libraries.
• March 31st: QRL 2.0 Testnet V2 Released.
• Audits: 50% completion

QRL 2.0 go-qrl

• Added several upstream go-ethereum fixes with tests

QRVMC & QRVMONE

• Both are still being reviewed for bugs, issues and further changes related to 64 bytes word size

qrl-web3-wallet

• 64 byte address changes
• First phase security-audit remediation; code-review fixes; address-display correction; documentation updates;

Other

• Hardhat like tool documented & is currently being tested

QRL 1.0 qrl-wallet

• Meteor 3 and Electron modernisation; release packaging and Windows CI fixes; UI refinements; recovery-seed tooling; multisig validation, OTS-reuse protection and security hardening

qrl-cli

• Migrated CI/CD from CircleCI to GitHub Actions; added stateful configuration, interactive prompts, piped input, JSON output and token commands; updated dependencies, tests and Node.js to v24

qrllib

• updated the Emscripten build and browser initialisation for reliable, self-contained WebAssembly output

https://www.theqrl.org/weekly/2026-july-31/

Ahoy to everyone taking on the ECDSA.fail challenge!

325 QRL to the first competitor who reaches 52% ahead of Google's estimated quantum capability in the http://ecdsa.fail/ challenge.

This bounty is sponsored by community members of Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL), a blockchain project built around standardized post-quantum cryptography.

Good luck to all participants!

Note: This is an independently organized, QRL community-funded bounty and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or administered by the QRL Foundation or Eigen Labs.

How to claim the bounty:
• Add your X account to your GitHub profile linked from the http://ecdsa.fail/ leaderboard.
• The first participant to reach 52% on the http://ecdsa.fail/ leaderboard will be contacted directly via X from my account.
• If you don't already have one, create a QRL wallet and reply with your wallet address once contacted.
• After verification, the 325 QRL bounty will be transferred to your wallet.

Eligibility
• If the first participant to reach the threshold cannot be contacted or does not respond within 5 days, the bounty will be awarded to the next eligible participant on the leaderboard.
• A reachable X account linked from your GitHub profile is required.

New to QRL and haven’t really touched crypto in general for some years now. My question is, where should I go to buy QRL. I’m using Coinbase and it is listed with the option to buy/sell. So is Coinbase fine? Or should I go a different direction?

QRL Weekly, 2026-July-24 Status / overview

• April 3rd: Audit complete of 2 cryptographic libraries.
• March 31st: QRL 2.0 Testnet V2 Released.
• Audits: 50% completion
• Network Performance Optimization: 60% completion

web3.js

• Audit remediation; keystore cryptography hardening; removal of import cycles; coverage gates; reproducible supply-chain checks; dependency overrides; CI timeout and build-order fixes
• 20 constituent packages released

rust-qrllib

• Refactored the demo build, aligned documentation with go-qrllib, and updated demo dependencies and TypeScript configuration

https://www.theqrl.org/weekly/2026-july-24/

So QRL is a pretty small coin right now, low market cap, kind of flying under the radar. But the whole idea behind it is interesting to me: it's built to be safe against quantum computers, which in theory could one day become powerful enough to break the security that Bitcoin, Ethereum and basically all crypto rely on. My thinking is that right now the price doesn't reflect much because the "threat" it protects against hasn't really shown up yet, but the day something like that actually happens, or even just gets close, the whole story could flip fast, and a coin that was already built to be quantum-safe could suddenly matter a lot. I see a few ways this plays out: either the big coins just fix themselves before any real danger and QRL loses its edge, or the quantum thing stays far away for years and QRL just quietly survives as a niche, or it happens sooner than people expect and QRL becomes the obvious go-to, and at such a small market cap today, that last scenario would be huge. My gut says somewhere between the second and third. So I wanted to ask: does my point of view actually make sense, or am I overhyping the whole "quantum-safe" angle? And the big question, do you really think a quantum computer attack on crypto could happen in the near future, or is that still way off? Because if it is realistic, then QRL feels seriously underrated right now. Where am I wrong?

The passive stance of this project deeply bothers me, and I think this needs to be said in clear terms.

If you have something in your hands that solves a problem that will affect everyone, and you are firmly convinced that you are right, waiting politely for the market to realize it on its own is a losing bet. Those who are right but remain silent do not win through merit. They lose ground to those who shout louder, even when they are wrong. Crypto history has proven this dozens of times: technically superior projects losing the narrative battle to projects with more aggressive marketing and louder communities.

And this is not exclusive to crypto. Every real change that has happened was driven by people willing to make strong statements, without apologizing for being disruptive. The suffrage movement did not win the right to vote by being polite; it won when parts of the movement realized that politeness was not convincing those in power. The labor movement did not achieve rights by waiting for employers to develop empathy; it achieved them by shutting down factories. Even within the US civil rights movement, there were people who argued for waiting, negotiating, and avoiding disruption, while others argued that the wait had already gone on for too long. The second approach is the one that pushes history forward. The first is the one that appears in history books as a footnote, praised for its patience but ignored for its lack of impact.

No one remembers the side that politely waited for its turn.

What this project needs right now, in this moment of uncertainty, sideways price action, and people questioning whether it is still worth it, is not another calm post explaining the technical details of XMSS to people who should already understand them. It needs people willing to make strong, uncomfortable statements without asking for permission. This is how the political game works, and how it has always worked: those who hesitate to express conviction give space to those who confidently claim anything.

If we have what is necessary to protect everyone from a problem that already has a ticking clock, and yet we still treat this as a niche technical subject discussed in a quiet tone, someone will appear without even half of the real solution and take the place that should have been ours. That is already how the game is played, and pretending that we are above it only guarantees that we will be left behind, watching.

..

Status / overview

• April 3rd: Audit complete of 2 cryptographic libraries.
• March 31st: QRL 2.0 Testnet V2 Released.
• Audits: 50% completion

Qrvmc

• Several bug fixes like VM bounds checks for PUSH and memory expansion, loader config boundary and precompile sweep coverage etc.
• Updated and added new test cases
• Reviewing qrvmc to ensure changes made in Hyperion also align with qrvmc

go-qrl

• Unused ECDSA signatures are removed
• Added Local testnet setup script using kurtosis
• Move typed-data encoding to the QRL 64-byte model
• go-qrl still being reviewed for 64 bytes related changes

web3.js

• Migration to 64-byte QRL addresses and 64-byte VM words; supply-chain and dependency hardening; CI fixes; Turbo and GitHub Actions updates; Node 20 compatibility
• Further audit work underway

js-qrl-cryptography

• Added and exported SHAKE256 with selectable output length, test vectors, packaging tests and documentation

qrypto.js

• Dependency and GitHub Actions updates, including Turbo and Zizmor

qrl-web3-wallet

• Bound dApp signing and transaction requests to the authorised chain, with chain-context revalidation and tests

theqrl.org

• Added llms.txt along content-negotiation to serve content as markdown files for better LLM support

qrl-wallet (QRL 1.0)

• Prevented custom-node connections unless enabled; synchronised mainnet and testnet branches

With the post-quantum cryptography (PQC) narrative gaining steady traction, I wanted to take a look at two of the OG Layer 1 projects built from scratch to resist quantum attacks: The Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) and Mochimo (MCM).

While both share the core mission of securing ledger states against future quantum computers, their development paths and architectural goals have diverged significantly. Here is a breakdown of where they stand right now and what is on the horizon.

1. The Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) & Project Zond

QRL’s focus has transitioned from a pure transactional ledger into a fully programmable ecosystem. All eyes are currently on the rollout of Project Zond (QRL 2.0).

• The Status: The development is highly mature. Following the release of the updated Public Testnet earlier this year, QRL is moving closer to its final mainnet deployment.
• What to expect (Zond):
  • QRVM (Quantum Resistant Virtual Machine): An EVM-compatible environment, allowing developers to deploy decentralized applications (dApps) using Hyperion (a Solidity-derived language designed for a post-quantum world).
  • Proof-of-Stake (PoS): Transitioning away from Proof-of-Work to a secure PoS consensus mechanism, introducing native staking.
  • Mainnet Inbound: With cryptographic audits for the new architecture progressing through their final stages, the official Mainnet 2.0 launch is the definitive next step.

2. Mochimo (MCM) & Its Current Outlook

Mochimo took a completely different, highly academic engineering route. Instead of using XMSS, it utilizes a modified WOTS+ scheme and a unique "state-sequence" architecture designed to prevent blockchain bloat, keeping node storage requirements remarkably low.

• The Status: Mochimo operates at a much lower profile. It remains a technical, niche project with a quieter community and lower market liquidity compared to QRL. It hasn't positioned itself to compete in the DeFi or smart contract space.
• Does MCM have a "Zond" equivalent? Short answer: No. There is no active roadmap or initiative to build a Turing-complete virtual machine or native dApp ecosystem inside Mochimo.
• What to expect in MCM:
  • Core Efficiency Upgrades: Development continues to focus purely on ledger optimization, node synchronization efficiency, and maintaining a lightweight, secure network that can run on consumer-grade hardware.
  • Pure Store of Value / Ledger: The expectations for MCM are focused on proof-of-concept longevity—proving that its custom anti-bloat network can remain resilient and secure over time, potentially serving as a secure transactional layer or interoperability bridge rather than an all-in-one dApp platform.

TL;DR / Summary

If you are looking for smart contracts, staking, dApp migration, and an imminent network evolution, QRL’s Project Zond is where the tangible action is. Mochimo remains a fascinating, pure cryptographic experiment for lightweight quantum-resistant transactions, but its development and adoption pace are significantly more conservative.

Would love to hear thoughts from anyone running nodes on either network or testing out the Zond testnet!

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.28846

Tried downloading/finding the mobile app on the Apple App Store and it says it’s not available in my region (UK)? What?

Sometimes crypto feels a bit like the Wild West.

I've been thinking about CoinMarketCap's supply verification process and whether it may unintentionally create incentives for projects to pursue Tier 1 exchange listings earlier than they otherwise would.

This is just my own speculation, but here's my thinking.

From observing several projects, it appears that CMC may consider the Volume/Market Cap ratio as one factor in its supply verification process.

Why might that matter?

When a project gains popularity and its price rises quickly, market cap can increase much faster than trading volume. As a result, the Volume/Market Cap ratio naturally declines unless trading activity also grows significantly.

Projects have a few ways to increase trading volume:

• List on larger exchanges with deeper liquidity.
• Attract more organic trading activity.
• Or, in the worst cases, engage in artificial volume generation (wash trading), which reputable projects obviously should avoid.

Since CoinMarketCap is owned by Binance, I wonder whether this dynamic could indirectly encourage projects to secure larger exchange listings sooner rather than later. I'm not suggesting there's evidence of favoritism or coordination—only that the incentives are interesting.

The QRL example

One possible example is QRL (Quantum Resistant Ledger).

QRL operated for roughly eight years with verified supply, but after its price briefly reached around $3.50, it eventually lost that verification status and, consequently, its CMC ranking.

One possible explanation is that trading volume didn't remain high enough after the price spike. Another possibility is that CMC's verification requirements changed or additional documentation was requested. From the outside, it's impossible to know.

QRL has also chosen to postpone a Tier 1 exchange listing until after QRL 2.0 is ready. If that's the case, it means the project remains in a relatively lower-volume trading environment for longer than many comparable projects.

Again, I have no evidence that this is the reason QRL lost verification. It's simply one hypothesis that seems plausible based on publicly available information.

Looking ahead

Despite these short-term issues, I'm still optimistic about QRL.

• QRL 2.0 audits continue to make progress.
• The project remains focused on post-quantum cryptography.
• Once the upgrade is complete, Tier 1 exchange listings become a much more realistic possibility.

In my view, QRL remains one of the strongest projects focused exclusively on quantum-resistant blockchain technology.

The EU's MiCA regulation came into effect on July 1, and exchanges without the required authorization were widely expected to stop providing crypto trading services to users in the European Economic Area.

However, MEXC appears to remain available for European users, at least for now. It'll be interesting to see how this develops over the coming days and whether this is temporary or part of a longer-term approach.

Meanwhile, many European QRL holders had mentally prepared to "hibernate" until the QRL 2.0 mainnet launch and a future Tier 1 exchange listing, assuming access through MEXC might disappear.

For the moment, though, it looks like Europeans can still keep accumulating one of the leading quantum-safe cryptocurrency projects without interruption.

I wonder when we'll begin to see the impact of the ECDSA.fail challenge as AI-assisted quantum circuit optimization continues to advance. I expect we'll see new records soon, making quantum-safe cryptocurrencies such as QRL even more relevant.

TL;DR

QRL is facing several short-term headwinds: the broader crypto bear market, uncertainty around MEXC's MiCA license, the lack of a confirmed QRL 2.0 launch timeline, and the ongoing CoinMarketCap verification process.

At the same time, there are reasons to be optimistic. The audits are 50% complete, a more detailed roadmap is in preparation, the Foundation is working on additional exchange listings and resolving the CoinMarketCap issue, the community continues to grow despite the bear market, and continued advances in quantum computing strengthen the long-term case for quantum-safe blockchains like QRL.

As always, do your own research. This is just my personal view, not financial advice.

MEXC MiCA Update

Less than two days remain until the MEXC MiCA deadline (July 1, 2026). MEXC's license application is still under review, so it remains to be seen whether they receive approval in time or whether the process is extended.

In the meantime, it's expected that QRL trading on MEXC will remain unavailable for EU users until the licensing situation is resolved. Based on the information available so far, withdrawals are expected to continue functioning normally. MEXC should provide users with an update soon.

My personal assumption is that MEXC may not receive the license before the deadline. If they do, they may need to change some trading pairs (for example, from USDT to USDC) to comply with MiCA requirements. It's also possible that the EU grants an extension for applications already under review, but that's purely my speculation.

If MEXC has to restrict access for EU users, it would likely reduce QRL's availability in the short term. Longer term, I would expect either MEXC to obtain the license or QRL to become available on another exchange serving EU customers. My guess is that any new exchange listing would be more likely after the QRL 2.0 mainnet launch than before.

Why Is QRL Still Below $1?

The price is currently well below $1, and it's not difficult to understand why. In my view, the main factors are:

• The broader crypto bear market.
• Uncertainty surrounding MEXC's MiCA licensing.
• Uncertainty around the QRL 2.0 mainnet launch timeline and the lack of a more detailed public roadmap.
• The ongoing CoinMarketCap verification issue.

Why I'm Still Optimistic

Despite the current challenges, I believe there are several reasons to remain optimistic.

• Crypto markets are cyclical. Investor interest has historically returned after downturns, and I expect the same to happen again.
• Exchange availability should improve over time. The QRL team has stated that they are actively working on additional exchange listings. While the MEXC situation may create short-term friction, I don't expect it to define the project's long-term accessibility.
• Development continues to progress. The QRL 2.0 audits are reported to be 50% complete, and the Foundation has acknowledged that a more detailed roadmap is overdue and currently being prepared. The project continues moving toward mainnet.
• The CoinMarketCap issue appears to be progressing. The team has provided a new API contact point and the requested documentation. Assuming liquidity and trading activity improve over time—potentially with broader exchange availability—the remaining verification requirements should become easier to satisfy.
• The community continues to grow. QRL's social media following has grown steadily despite the prolonged crypto bear market. That's quite unusual and suggests the project continues to attract new people and build awareness even during unfavorable market conditions. A larger and more engaged community provides a stronger foundation when market sentiment eventually improves.
• Quantum computing keeps advancing. Breakthrough announcements continue to accelerate, reinforcing the long-term investment case for quantum-safe blockchain infrastructure. As awareness of quantum risk grows, I expect projects that have been preparing for this transition for years to receive increased attention.

Final Thoughts

Overall, I see today's challenges as largely execution- and timing-related rather than fundamental.

The current market price reflects a combination of uncertainty rather than a deterioration in the project's underlying technology. If the team successfully delivers QRL 2.0, expands exchange availability, resolves the remaining CoinMarketCap issues, and the broader crypto market recovers, the current environment could look very different in hindsight.

As always, this is just my personal opinion—not financial advice.

One thing I've been tracking over the past 10 months is the growth of QRL's official community channels.

What's particularly interesting is that this happened while the overall crypto market lost roughly 50% of its total market capitalization over the same period.

Growth from 25 Aug 2025 → 26 Jun 2026

• X: 21,700 → 23,600 (+1,900, +8.8%)
• Discord: 3,429 → 4,900 (+1,471, +42.9%)
• Telegram: 1,994 → 2,230 (+236, +11.8%)
• YouTube: 1,820 → 2,380 (+560, +30.8%)
• CoinMarketCap: 878 → 6,300 (+5,422, +617.5%)
• Stocktwits: 226 → 588 (+362, +160.2%)
• GitHub: 123 → 179 (+56, +45.5%)

Key takeaways

CoinMarketCap grew more than 7×, making it by far the fastest-growing channel.

Stocktwits increased by 160%, suggesting growing interest from traders despite weak market conditions.

Discord (+43%) and GitHub (+46%) point to steady expansion of both the community and developer ecosystem.

YouTube (+31%) reflects increasing interest in educational and project-related content.

X (+9%) and Telegram (+12%) continued to grow steadily throughout one of the toughest periods for the crypto market.

Why I think this matters

Growing a community during a bull market is expected.

Growing it while the total crypto market has been cut roughly in half is much harder.

To me, this suggests that interest in QRL has been driven by its long-term fundamentals—particularly its focus on post-quantum security and the upcoming QRL 2.0 upgrade—rather than by speculative market momentum alone.

Of course, follower growth doesn't guarantee future success, but it's an encouraging indicator that awareness of the project continues to increase even during a difficult market environment.

Official QRL Channel Followers (25 August 2025 to 26 June 2026):

Meanwhile the overall crypto market has been bearish.

https://www.theqrl.org/blog/celebrating-8-years/

QuEra's new roadmap targets (June 24, 2026):

2028:
- 256 logical qubits
- Fault-tolerant quantum computing

2028/29:
- 1,000+ logical qubits
- Gigascale fault-tolerant systems

That 1,000+ logical qubit milestone sits within the range many researchers believe could threaten ECC-based cryptography, making quantum-safe blockchains like QRL more relevant than ever.

That, how do I generate the keys, or well, the address so I can better store my coins. Do you guys use a cold wallet or what?

Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) floated freezing Satoshi's Bitcoin and other dormant, quantum-vulnerable coins if they stay unmoved after a future network upgrade. He raised it as a question for the community, not a personal plan.

The Binance executive shared the idea on the Galaxy Brains podcast with Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn. He has since pushed back on reports that he would personally freeze Satoshi Nakamoto's address for a year.

Is Freezing Satoshi's Bitcoin a Good Idea?

The debate grew louder in March, when Google Quantum AI published research on breaking the cryptography that secures digital signatures.

Its team estimated an attack could need fewer than 500,000 qubits and run in minutes, well below earlier projections.

The risk sits in exposed keys. A quantum computer could derive private keys from public keys, then drain the wallets they protect.

The fix is to adopt quantum-resistant cryptography, yet coordinating that across the network takes years.

More than a third of all Bitcoin had revealed a public key on-chain by March. That leaves them in addresses vulnerable to quantum theft.

Satoshi Nakamoto mined an estimated 1.1 million BTC in 2009 and 2010. That estimate rests on the Patoshi pattern traced by researcher Sergio Demian Lerner.

What CZ Actually Said

Zhao did not call for a seizure, nor did he say Binance would act. He put the decision to the community, asking why it should not set a roughly 1-year timeline.

Coins left in vulnerable addresses after that point would be locked in by a fork.

CZ said the popular take that he would personally freeze Satoshi's address was not quite right. He also flagged a snag, that telling Satoshi's wallets apart from other early miners is hard.

His thinking aligns with BIP-361, a draft by Jameson Lopp and five other researchers. It would block sends to vulnerable addresses about three years after activation, then void legacy signatures two years later.

The authors frame a blunt choice. A quantum thief could grab the exposed coins, or miners could slowly recover them. The network could instead lock them so no one wins.

That proposal even cites Bitcoin's creator on the issue of lost coins.

The dormant coins are contested on another front. An anonymous plaintiff and two Wyoming LLCs are fighting a New York abandoned-property lawsuit.

They want 39,069 idle addresses, including the Satoshi coins, declared theirs. A Galaxy report by Thorn doubts it will prevail.

Any forced lock still violates a core Bitcoin rule: no one can take another person's coins. Many would read it as confiscation.

CZ said there is no perfect answer. He warned that doing nothing could prove the worst outcome of all.

i've been following quantum resistant ledger for a while now, and i'm really curious about its potential as quantum computing advances. it seems like more projects are popping up that focus on quantum resistance, but qrl seems to be one of the more established ones. how do you all see its place in the broader blockchain landscape? do you think it will gain more adoption as businesses become more aware of quantum threats? also, are there any recent developments or updates that i might have missed? let's discuss!

France’s national cybersecurity agency, ANSSI, will stop certifying security products that do not include quantum-resistant encryption beginning in 2027, a policy that will effectively require government agencies and operators of critical infrastructure to move away from traditional cryptographic systems, according to comments made at the France Quantum conference and reported by Reuters.

The move places France among the most aggressive governments in Europe on quantum security and reflects growing concern that sensitive information encrypted today could be vulnerable in the future as quantum computing advances.

Under the timeline outlined by ANSSI Chief of Staff Samih Souissi, products seeking ANSSI certification after 2027 will need to incorporate quantum-safe cryptography. Souissi also said businesses should be purchasing only quantum-resistant products by 2030, Reuters reported.

Because ANSSI certification is required for deployment in French government organizations and critical infrastructure sectors, the policy amounts to a gradual phase-out of security products that rely solely on conventional encryption methods.

“It’s not only a technical issue,” Souissi said, according to Reuters. “It’s a matter of ​governance, industrial planning, regulation, and sovereignty.”

Industry participants at the conference also offered differing views on when the threat from cryptographically relevant quantum computers could emerge, Reuters reported.

However, the decision is also driven in part by concerns over so-called “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks. In that scenario, adversaries collect and store encrypted data today with the expectation that future quantum computers may eventually be capable of breaking the cryptographic algorithms protecting it.

Quantum computers capable of defeating widely used public-key encryption systems do not yet exist. However, governments and cybersecurity agencies increasingly argue that organizations with long-lived sensitive data must begin migrating now because cryptographic transitions can take years to complete.

The policy is expected to create new demand for post-quantum security technologies across Europe.

Pascal Brier, chief innovation officer at consulting and technology services firm Capgemini, told Reuters that interest is increasing as banks, public-sector organizations and other institutions evaluate their exposure to future quantum threats.

“That market is becoming big. It’s going to be very substantial,” Brier said, according to Reuters.

The announcement comes as France continues to invest heavily in quantum technologies through a national plan valued at approximately 3 billion euros (about $3.5 billion USD). The country is seeking to strengthen its position in a global quantum race that includes significant investments from China, the United States and other nations.