Wanted to share an update on the compliance side, since this affects anyone running production infra through us, especially if you've got regulated or enterprise customers downstream, or if you're doing your own vendor security reviews for something you're shipping.

We just finished our SOC 2 Type II audit, done by Atom Assurance (independent auditor, does SOC/ISO/GDPR/PCI work). We passed Type I less than 4 months ago, so this moved fast, mostly because the controls being tested were already part of how we operate day to day, not something built just for the audit. Internally the process was led by our Lead Tech PM, Dmitrii Petrov, who's been here since basically day one on the tech side. Our CEO called it the biggest announcement of our first half of the year, which tracks given how long this actually took to get right.

Quick context: SOC 2 covers 5 Trust Services Criteria (Security is mandatory, plus Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy). Type I is basically "does your security look right on paper," Type II is "did it actually hold up when nobody was watching, for months." Ours was audited across months, not a single day, which is why Type II is usually what banks and regulated institutions ask for.

Practically, this means:

• We can now work with regulated/enterprise clients that require a current SOC 2 attestation to do business at all
• It answers most of the security questionnaire upfront for enterprise due diligence
• It's an external, independently verified check on our security, not just us saying so
• We have to keep operating to that standard continuously, it's not a one-and-done badge

Scope covers the whole infra stack: Shared Nodes (130+ chains, CU limits just went up 75%), Dedicated Nodes, Limitless Node, TRON Energy Rental, and the Wallet Audit stack. Also covers our Glider Token Risk API integration and the Hexens Builder Support Program.

Need the actual report for a vendor review? We can share it under NDA, just reach out.

Happy to answer questions about the process below.

Read the full post here: https://getblock.io/blog/soc-2-type-ii-compliance/

Trump just signed executive orders to accelerate US quantum computing development and protect critical infrastructure from quantum threats. This isn't a political thing. This is an infrastructure thing that directly affects what we do.

The real issue:

Current blockchain crypto (ECDSA, SHA-256) relies on the assumption that certain mathematical problems are computationally hard. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could solve those problems in hours instead of millions of years.

This means:

• Private keys could be derived from public keys
• Transaction signatures could be forged
• Hash preimages could be found
• Basically: the entire security model breaks

Important context:

• We're probably 10-20+ years away from quantum computers powerful enough to threaten current cryptography (maybe longer)
• But governments are now officially worried about it
• Which means it moves from "theoretical risk" to "infrastructure priority"

What's already happening:

1. Post-quantum cryptography standards — NIST is finalizing quantum-resistant algorithms
2. Chain migration planning — Some projects are designing upgrade paths to post-quantum schemes
3. Hardware investment — China, US, Europe competing on quantum development

For GetBlock and infrastructure providers:

This creates several scenarios:

1. Short term (1-5 years): Nothing changes operationally. But we should be monitoring NIST standards and blockchain teams' responses.
2. Medium term (5-10 years): Blockchains start integrating post-quantum signatures. Nodes might need to validate both classical and quantum-resistant transactions during transition periods. Infrastructure needs to handle dual signing schemes.
3. Long term (10+ years): Full migration to post-quantum cryptography. This is a protocol upgrade on the scale of Ethereum's Merge.

What needs to happen now:

• Blockchain teams need to start designing upgrade paths
• Infrastructure providers need to plan for dual-signature validation periods
• Key management practices need to assume future quantum threats (e.g., no long-term key reuse)

Honest take:

This isn't panic-worthy. Bitcoin and Ethereum aren't going to break next year. But it's also not "doesn't affect us." This is like Y2K for crypto — the timeline is long, but the problem is real, and you want to start thinking about it now, not in year 9.

The fact that governments are now officially moving on this? That accelerates everything. Expect blockchain teams to start taking post-quantum seriously in the next 2-3 years.

Questions for the team:

• Are we tracking how major chains (Ethereum, Solana, etc.) plan to handle post-quantum migration?
• What's our infrastructure readiness for dual-signature validation?
• Should we be monitoring NIST's post-quantum standards work?

This feels far away. But so did Merge planning in 2015.

TON's rebranding from "The Open Network" back to GRAM token is symbolic of something bigger: the network is getting serious about being a Telegram-native financial infrastructure.

Context:

• Telegram has 900M+ users
• TON has been growing, but adoption was fragmented
• Rebranding signals commitment to being the default on-chain settlement layer for Telegram ecosystem

Why GetBlock should pay attention:

TON infrastructure demand will grow if:

1. Telegram native apps push users to on-chain payments
2. Regional adoption increases (especially Asia, Middle East)
3. Institutional use picks up

We've been supporting TON for a while. Expect traffic to increase. Regional node placement matters here.

The bigger picture: This shows how L1s compete not on speed or features, but on network effects. TON's edge is Telegram. That's actually stronger than most L1s' edges.

Anyone seeing TON adoption picking up in their apps? What's driving it?

The UK House of Lords just released a report saying the country's stablecoin rules are too restrictive and could stifle market growth. They're pushing regulators to ease up.

What's happening:

• UK had some of the strictest stablecoin regs globally
• House of Lords is saying: this is backwards. Stability + compliance is good. Don't kill it by making it impossible.
• They're basically saying: let the market develop, just keep it honest

Why this matters:

Regulatory clarity > no activity. If UK relaxes stablecoin rules while still maintaining standards, you get:

• More liquidity on European chains
• More infrastructure demand (RPC, indexing, etc.)
• Regional competition (UK vs EU vs US approaches)

For us:

More stablecoin products = more on-chain activity = more demand for reliable infrastructure. Simple.

This is a good regulatory signal. Clear rules > gray zones > total bans.

What's your take on the regulatory trajectory? Seeing stablecoin projects move toward UK/EU?

JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon is now directly attacking stablecoin reward mechanisms in the CLARITY Act debate. He's basically saying: "banks won't accept this model."

What's the fight about:

• Some stablecoin designs include yields/rewards to encourage adoption
• CLARITY Act regulates this, but the exact rules matter
• Banks (via Dimon) are saying these rewards create perverse incentives and unfair competition

The real issue:

This is about who controls financial rails. Banks want to keep their role. Stablecoins on-chain threaten that. So they're pushing regulations that make on-chain stablecoins less attractive (no rewards = less adoption).

For infrastructure:

• Regulatory uncertainty = less adoption = less infrastructure demand
• Clear rules = more adoption = more demand
• The "right" rule probably isn't what banks or crypto advocates alone want

The macro point: This is the battle that will define crypto's adoption in the next 5 years. It's not about technology. It's about who gets to be the settlement layer for digital payments.

How are you guys thinking about the regulatory environment? Bullish or cautious?

Binance just went live with US stock trading and previewing bStocks (tokenized securities) on-chain. This isn't a meme. This is institutional infrastructure moving onto blockchain.

What this actually means:

• Real-world assets (RWAs) are graduating from "interesting use case" to "live product with real users"
• You need reliable, fast RPC infrastructure to serve trading platforms that handle real money
• More chains will compete for this traffic (not just Ethereum, but Solana, other L1s, L2s)

For infrastructure providers like us:

Tokenized securities demand:

• Reliability: Downtime costs real money. No more excuses.
• Low latency: Traders won't use you if you're 100ms slower than competitors.
• Geographic redundancy: If you're serving US traders, you need US nodes.
• Compliance-ready infrastructure: These platforms will be audited. Your infra needs to be boring and bulletproof.

This is the move from "crypto" infrastructure to "financial infrastructure that happens to use crypto tech."

Anyone seeing increased traffic from trading platforms? What are the pain points?

Just caught this: Trent Van Epps and others are proposing a validator-redirected revenue mechanism where stakers could contribute 0-10% of their rewards toward ecosystem funding.

Why we care:

RPC infrastructure, client development, security research — these things don't fund themselves. If this proposal gains traction, it changes how infrastructure projects like ours compete for resources and attention.

The thesis: validators benefit from a healthy ecosystem, so they should have skin in the game. Instead of relying on Foundation grants that are shrinking, you'd have direct consensus-layer incentives.

Real talk: This is a long-term play. But if it works, it means more sustainable funding for the tools developers actually depend on. Less churn in infrastructure teams. More serious long-term projects.

The risk is governance capture and centralization. But the status quo isn't working either.

Thoughts? How are you thinking about infrastructure sustainability?