blockchain network
Flare FLR
Flare is an EVM-compatible PoS L1 network using Avalanche's Snowman++ consensus. The production network relies entirely on classical cryptography (secp256k1 ECDSA for accounts/transactions and likely BLS for validators). While Flare Research published a 2022 whitepaper proposing a hybrid ECDSA + CRYSTALS-Dilithium signature scheme for the EVM, this remains a theoretical design with no evidence of testnet or mainnet implementation. All quantum-critical layers, including spend authorization, consensus authentication, and cross-chain interoperability protocols (FTSO, State Connector, FAssets), remain vulnerable to quantum attacks. The project qualifies for Stage 2 due to the existence of a public mitigation design, but scores low due to the complete absence of production protection or migration tooling.
Roadmap Only
Category breakdown
QRI Factors
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
1.75 / 20
Migration Mechanism, Governance & Ecosystem Coordination
0.75 / 15
Migration Status & Value-at-Risk
0 / 25
Production Cryptographic Protection
0 / 35
Security Assessment & Evidence Preparedness
5 / 5
Critical Quantum Blockers
- Active production spend authorization remains entirely ECC-only (secp256k1 ECDSA).
- Consensus-critical authentication (Snowman++ PoS) relies on classical signatures.
- Material long-exposure quantum-vulnerable value exists in transacted EOAs with no migration, freeze, or deprecation path.
- FTSO, State Connector, and FAssets bridge verification rely on classical cryptography.
Key Risks
- Shor's algorithm could recover private keys from exposed secp256k1 public keys on-chain, enabling theft of native FLR and ERC-20 assets from transacted EOAs.
- Quantum adversaries could forge validator signatures or manipulate Snowman++ consensus sampling, compromising network finality.
- FTSO and State Connector attestations rely on classical signatures; a quantum attacker could forge oracle data or cross-chain state proofs, compromising dependent DeFi applications and bridged assets.
- LayerZero integration exposes cross-chain messaging to classical signature forgery.
Assurance Notes
- Recent Zellic audits (2025-2026) are scoped to application-layer smart contracts (FAsset Redeem Composer, Smart Accounts) and do not cover base-layer ECC, BLS, or consensus cryptography.
- The 2022 hybrid post-quantum signature research paper remains a theoretical design with no public testnet, prototype, or mainnet deployment evidence.
- Core interoperability protocols (FTSO, State Connector, FAssets) and LayerZero integrations rely entirely on classical cryptographic assumptions, exposing bridged assets and oracle data to quantum forgery.
Non-Scoring Caveats
- Flare Research published a 2022 whitepaper proposing a hybrid ECDSA + CRYSTALS-Dilithium Level 2 signature scheme for the EVM, demonstrating early awareness of the quantum threat, but this has not progressed to prototype or testnet stages.
- Standard EVM address model exposes public keys on-chain for all transacted accounts, creating long-exposure attack windows.
Evidence record
Claims and Caveats
Security Assessment
Public cryptographic inventory and threat model
Claim: Flare Research published a 2022 whitepaper detailing the quantum threat to EVM's ECDSA and proposing a hybrid Dilithium scheme.
Coverage basis: Research paper / design proposal
Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Assurance: The whitepaper demonstrates clear awareness of the quantum threat and inventories the vulnerable EVM primitives.
This is a research proposal, not a live implementation.
Production Cryptographic Protection
Spend authorization / transaction signatures
Claim: Flare Mainnet uses standard EVM ECDSA (secp256k1) for transaction signatures.
Coverage basis: Classical ECC only
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Quantum blocker: Active production spend authorization remains entirely ECC-only (secp256k1 ECDSA).
Assurance: Standard EVM behavior confirmed by official documentation and block explorer.
No PQ or hybrid transaction types are supported on mainnet.
Production Cryptographic Protection
Account, address, public-key exposure
Claim: Standard EVM 0x addresses expose public keys on-chain for transacted EOAs.
Coverage basis: Classical ECC only
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Quantum blocker: Material long-exposure quantum-vulnerable value exists in transacted EOAs with no migration, freeze, or deprecation path.
Assurance: Typical EVM behavior; public keys are derivable from transaction signatures.
Creates long-exposure attack windows for all reused or transacted addresses.
Production Cryptographic Protection
Consensus-critical authentication
Claim: Snowman++ PoS consensus relies on classical signatures for validator sampling and block finalization.
Coverage basis: Classical signatures (BLS/ECDSA)
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Quantum blocker: Consensus-critical authentication (Snowman++ PoS) relies on classical signatures.
Assurance: Avalanche-derived consensus uses classical stake-weighted sampling and signatures.
No PQ integration in the consensus layer.
Production Cryptographic Protection
State-integrity and data-availability
Claim: FTSO, State Connector, and FAssets rely on classical cryptography for off-chain data and cross-chain state verification.
Coverage basis: Classical signatures
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing
Quantum blocker: FTSO, State Connector, and FAssets bridge verification rely on classical cryptography.
Assurance: Oracle and bridge attestations are vulnerable to quantum forgery.
Compromises dependent DeFi applications and bridged assets.
Production Cryptographic Protection
Privacy and proof layers
Claim: Flare has no native privacy layer or ZK proof system for state shielding.
Coverage basis: N/A
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable
Migration Status & Value-at-Risk
Percentage of value-at-risk protected
Claim: 0% of native FLR or bridged assets are protected by PQ cryptography.
Coverage basis: No PQ implementation
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: cap-applying
Quantum blocker: Active production spend authorization remains entirely ECC-only.
Assurance: No migration has occurred.
All native and bridged value remains exposed.
Migration Mechanism, Governance & Ecosystem Coordination
Public migration or protection roadmap
Claim: 2022 research paper proposes a hybrid signature design but lacks a production migration roadmap, sequencing, or activation criteria.
Coverage basis: Research proposal only
Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: quantum-critical uncertainty · Score treatment: score-reducing
Assurance: The paper is a design document, not an actionable migration plan.
No timeline or governance mechanism for PQ upgrade has been published.
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
Uses NIST-standardized PQC algorithms
Claim: The 2022 research proposal specifies CRYSTALS-Dilithium Level 2 (NIST standard), but it is not implemented.
Coverage basis: Design proposal only
Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: score-reducing
Assurance: Dilithium is a NIST-standardized algorithm, but remains theoretical for Flare.
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
Independent audit
Claim: Recent Zellic audits cover smart contracts, not core protocol or cryptographic primitives.
Coverage basis: Scope-mismatched audits
Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High
Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: confidence-only
Assurance: Audits are fresh but limited to application-layer smart contracts.
No quantum-critical or base-layer crypto audits exist.
Algorithm & Implementation Assurance
Performance and resource-impact analysis
Claim: The 2022 whitepaper includes performance comparisons between ECDSA and Dilithium.
Coverage basis: Research paper analysis
Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: Medium
Issue classification: none · Score treatment: score-reducing
Assurance: Theoretical performance analysis exists in the research paper.
No mainnet or testnet performance data available.
Report metadata