NEAR Protocol NEAR

Claim: NEAR One CTO Anton Astafiev published a blog post identifying Ed25519 and ECDSA as quantum-vulnerable, describing the quantum threat to blockchain signatures, and outlining the migration strategy.

Coverage basis: Public blog post by Anton Astafiev, CTO at Near One, published May 2026 on near.org, cross-posted to multiple outlets.

Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: quantum-critical uncertainty · Score treatment: score-reducing

Assurance: The assessment is in blog-post form rather than a formal cryptographic inventory document. It covers user-facing signatures but does not comprehensively inventory all quantum-vulnerable layers in detail.

Score of 0.50 reflects a substantive CTO-authored threat assessment but not a formal, independently reviewed cryptographic inventory.

• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/
• https://bsc.news/post/near-protocol-quantum-preparation

Claim: NEAR's source code (nearcore, MPC repositories), protocol specification (Nomicon), and official documentation provide verifiable evidence of cryptographic primitives in use.

Coverage basis: Open-source repositories on GitHub, Nomicon protocol specification, official docs at docs.near.org.

Implementation score: 0.75 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: Code and specs are publicly available and verifiable. The Hacken audit (Oct 2023) and Trail of Bits audits (2025-2026) provide third-party review of components.

Score of 0.75 reflects strong evidence for current classical implementation.

• https://github.com/near/nearcore
• https://nomicon.io/Network/
• https://docs.near.org/

Claim: NEAR mainnet currently supports EdDSA (Ed25519) as default and ECDSA (secp256k1) as an alternative. Neither is quantum-safe. FIPS-204 (ML-DSA) is planned for testnet in June 2026 but is not on mainnet.

Coverage basis: Official docs, nearcore source code, CTO blog post (May 2026).

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing

Quantum blocker: Active production spend authorization remains entirely ECC/EdDSA-only. Caps score at 40.

Assurance: Current state is confirmed by multiple primary sources. No ambiguity.

NEAR's multi-scheme architecture can accommodate new signature schemes, but this does not protect current users.

• https://docs.near.org/
• https://github.com/near/nearcore
• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/

Claim: NEAR uses human-readable account IDs decoupled from cryptographic keypairs. Accounts are controlled through rotatable access keys. Public keys are exposed when accounts transact, but the rotatable design allows key migration without address change.

Coverage basis: Official docs and CTO blog post describing the account model.

Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing

Assurance: The rotatable access key design is verified in official documentation and is a genuine architectural advantage. However, current exposed public keys remain quantum-vulnerable.

Implementation score of 0.25 reflects the structural design advantage but not current protection, since all active keys are ECC-based and exposed.

• https://docs.near.org/
• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/

Claim: NEAR's Doomslug consensus requires validators to sign approvals (Endorsement/Skip messages) using Ed25519 signatures. Block production and finality depend on these validator signatures.

Coverage basis: Nomicon protocol specification (Consensus section), nearcore source code.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing

Quantum blocker: Validator consensus signatures are Ed25519-based and quantum-vulnerable.

Assurance: The Approval struct in the Nomicon includes a Signature field from validators. Ed25519 is confirmed as the signing algorithm.

Quantum-enabled forgery of validator approvals could compromise finality.

• https://near.github.io/nearcore/ChainSpec/Consensus.html
• https://nomicon.io/Network/

Claim: NEAR uses a Merkle Patricia Trie (MPT) for state storage. Hash-based state commitments are quantum-resistant for preimage resistance, but state roots are certified by classical validator signatures.

Coverage basis: Hacken audit report (2023), nearcore source code.

Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing

Assurance: The MPT-based state model uses hash-based commitments (SHA-256/Keccak-like), which are quantum-resistant for preimage resistance. However, the binding to consensus relies on Ed25519.

Score of 0.50 reflects that hash-based state commitments are inherently more quantum-resistant than pairing-based schemes, but state certification is still classical.

• https://hacken.io/audits/near/l1-near-nearcore-oct2023/
• https://github.com/near/nearcore

Claim: NEAR Protocol does not have a native shielded transaction or privacy layer. The protocol is transparent by design.

Coverage basis: Official documentation and protocol architecture.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

• https://docs.near.org/

Claim: NEAR's P2P network layer uses classical cryptographic signatures for message signing and peer authentication. Validators sign network messages with Ed25519 keys.

Coverage basis: Nomicon Network specification.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing

Quantum blocker: P2P network layer uses classical signatures, quantum-vulnerable.

Assurance: Confirmed by the Nomicon protocol specification.

• https://nomicon.io/Network/

Claim: Current NEAR wallets (software and hardware) support only Ed25519 and ECDSA signing. Hardware wallets do not support ML-DSA/FIPS-204.

Coverage basis: CTO blog post (May 2026), secondary reporting.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing

Assurance: Hardware wallet PQ support is a downstream dependency that will take significant time to resolve.

No PQ wallet or custody workflow exists today.

• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/

Claim: 0% of NEAR's ~$3.2B market cap and ~$196M DeFi TVL is protected by quantum-resistant cryptography. All value is secured by Ed25519/ECDSA.

Coverage basis: CoinGecko market data, DefiLlama TVL data, confirmed absence of mainnet PQ signatures.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing

Quantum blocker: 100% of value-at-risk is quantum-vulnerable with no mainnet PQ protection.

Assurance: Market data from multiple independent sources. Absence of mainnet PQ signatures confirmed by primary sources.

NEAR accounts that have transacted have exposed Ed25519 public keys, creating a long-exposure at-rest attack surface.

• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/near
• https://defillama.com/chain/near

Claim: No critical wallets (treasuries, exchanges, custodians, bridges, foundations, major protocols) on NEAR have migrated to PQ protection. No PQ migration path exists on mainnet.

Coverage basis: Confirmed absence of mainnet PQ support.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: quantum-critical vulnerability · Score treatment: score-reducing

Assurance: Negatively confirmed: no mainnet PQ path exists, therefore no critical wallet can be migrated.

Claim: NEAR's rotatable access key model means all accounts can theoretically migrate without address changes. However, no legacy pool identification, deprecation, or migration has occurred.

Coverage basis: CTO blog post describing the account model, absence of any on-chain migration activity.

Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: note-only

Assurance: The rotatable account model means address-level identification of vulnerable accounts is less critical than on UTXO chains.

Score of 0.25 reflects the structural design advantage but no implementation.

• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/

Claim: NEAR has published a clear roadmap: FIPS-204 (ML-DSA) integration in network upgrade 2.13 (June 2026) with dynamic resharding, testnet first, mainnet after security audits and community coordination.

Coverage basis: CTO blog post (May 2026), NEAR Protocol X/Twitter thread (May 21, 2026), multiple secondary confirmations.

Implementation score: 0.75 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: Roadmap is public and specific (FIPS-204, upgrade 2.13, June 2026). However, the mainnet timeline is not specified and depends on audit outcomes and governance.

Score of 0.75 reflects a concrete, versioned roadmap with specific algorithm choice and near-term testnet target, but no mainnet date.

• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/
• https://blockainews.com/news/near-protocol-dynamic-resharding-post-quantum-ai-agent-layer-2026-05-25/

Claim: NEAR's decoupled account model enables single-transaction key rotation to PQ without address change. Multi-scheme architecture supports adding new signature schemes. Wallet tooling, custody paths, and hardware support do not yet exist.

Coverage basis: CTO blog post, official documentation on account model.

Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: operational/product caveat · Score treatment: note-only

Assurance: The rotatable key design is verified in protocol architecture. However, no PQ wallet, custody path, or migration tooling is available today.

Score of 0.50 reflects the strong architectural foundation but complete absence of user-facing tooling.

• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/
• https://docs.near.org/

Claim: Near One is coordinating with wallet providers (including Ledger) and the Defuse team for Chain Signatures PQ migration. No enforcement mechanisms exist on mainnet.

Coverage basis: CTO blog post, secondary reporting.

Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: Low

Issue classification: operational/product caveat · Score treatment: note-only

Assurance: Coordination efforts are described in blog posts but not evidenced by public working groups, specifications, or attestations.

Score of 0.25 reflects early-stage coordination discussions without any enforcement or binding commitments.

• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/

Claim: NEAR maintains a bug bounty program on HackenProof. No quantum-specific incident-response process has been published.

Coverage basis: Bug bounty program existence, absence of quantum-specific IR documentation.

Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: note-only

Assurance: The bug bounty program has processed critical vulnerabilities (e.g., the November 2024 network shutdown vulnerability). No quantum-specific playbook exists.

Score of 0.25 reflects a functioning bug bounty program with demonstrated ability to ship emergency patches.

• https://hacken.io/audits/near/l1-near-nearcore-oct2023/

Claim: NEAR has selected FIPS-204 (ML-DSA, formerly CRYSTALS-Dilithium), a NIST-standardized lattice-based signature scheme finalized in August 2024, as its first PQ signing scheme.

Coverage basis: CTO blog post, multiple secondary confirmations.

Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: FIPS-204 is a well-reviewed NIST standard. The algorithm choice is appropriate. However, the implementation is not yet in production or publicly verifiable on testnet.

Score of 0.50 reflects the selection and public commitment to a NIST-standardized algorithm at testnet/proposal level.

• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/

Claim: NEAR's MPC components have been audited by Trail of Bits (2025-2026). Nearcore had a Hacken audit (October 2023). No PQ-specific audit exists.

Coverage basis: Trail of Bits publications page, Hacken audit report.

Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: note-only

Assurance: Existing audits cover classical MPC and protocol components but are scope-mismatched for PQ. The FIPS-204 implementation will require a new, in-scope audit before mainnet deployment.

Score of 0.25 reflects that audits exist for related components but no PQ-specific audit is available.

• https://github.com/trailofbits/publications
• https://hacken.io/audits/near/l1-near-nearcore-oct2023/

Claim: Nearcore and MPC node implementations are fully open-source (Rust, MIT license) with reproducible build support.

Coverage basis: GitHub repositories, MPC repo documents reproducible Docker builds.

Implementation score: 0.75 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: Both repositories are actively maintained and publicly accessible.

Score of 0.75 rather than 1.00 because the PQ implementation (FIPS-204) is not yet in the public codebase.

• https://github.com/near/nearcore
• https://github.com/near/mpc

Claim: NEAR's protocol was designed to support multiple signing schemes from inception. The account model decouples accounts from specific keypairs, enabling algorithm agility.

Coverage basis: CTO blog post, official documentation, protocol architecture.

Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: Multi-scheme support is designed into the protocol and verified by the existence of both Ed25519 and ECDSA schemes.

Score of 0.50 reflects that the protocol architecture supports agility but no formal PQ-specific agility documentation exists.

• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/
• https://docs.near.org/

Claim: No published analysis of side-channel, fault-injection, or custody implementation risks for the planned ML-DSA integration. ML-DSA is a stateless scheme so stateful-signature discipline is N/A.

Coverage basis: Absence of published security analysis for PQ implementation.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: None

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: note-only

Assurance: ML-DSA implementations require careful side-channel protection. This will need to be addressed before mainnet deployment.

Score of 0.00 reflects absence of any published analysis.

Claim: NEAR's CTO blog post acknowledges that ML-DSA signatures (~2,400 bytes) and public keys (~1,300 bytes) are significantly larger than Ed25519 (~64 bytes), requiring downstream stack changes. No formal benchmark has been published.

Coverage basis: CTO blog post.

Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: Low

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: note-only

Assurance: Acknowledgment of the performance challenge exists but no formal analysis or benchmark has been published.

Score of 0.25 reflects that the issue is acknowledged in a public proposal but no systematic analysis exists.

• https://www.raptorgroup.com/news/preparing-near-for-the-quantum-computing-era/