Web3 on Fire
Posts
🔥2029 Quantum deadline puts crypto on notice

🔥2029 Quantum deadline puts crypto on notice

Also: safe account support lands in Ambire

Web3 on Fire 🔥
March 27, 2026

GM, frens! ☕️

Most people try to avoid conflict. Not just with others, but with their own thinking too. It’s easier to stick to one clear idea than to hold two that don’t quite agree. But in our space, things rarely line up that neatly. Something can look strong and risky at the same time. Good and flawed at once.

Getting comfortable with that tension is part of the game.

Here’s what we’re discussing this week:

🪄 2029 Quantum deadline puts crypto on notice
🔥 Safe account support lands in Ambire
🤡 Billionaires cheer as they think "banks have won" over crypto
💀 Balancer enters survival mode

Below is how $WALLET is trading right now (also in new UI 🥰 )

If you want to talk, our Discord is always open.

2029 Quantum deadline puts crypto on notice

Quantum risk has usually been talked about like one of those problems sitting somewhere over the horizon. Serious, yes, but still far enough away that most people could file it under “later”.

But the message coming from both big tech and crypto is pretty clear: this may not be some distant future issue after all. It could start becoming relevant within the next few years, and even if the timeline ends up stretching further out, the smart move is still to prepare early 👇️

Google just put a public 2029 target on its post quantum cryptography migration, while warning that the point where quantum systems can seriously challenge current encryption may be closer than many expected 🤯

Google is not talking about some tiny corner of security here. It is talking about the foundations modern digital systems rely on: encryption, digital signatures, authentication.

The company also brought up the point security people keep repeating, which is that “store now, decrypt later” is already a real concern. Data taken today does not need to be cracked today. It only needs to still matter when the machines catch up 🤖
That is where crypto starts looking very exposed. Public blockchains rely heavily on the same general cryptographic foundations, especially around keys and signatures 🔑
If quantum systems become capable enough to break those assumptions, this stops being a niche research topic very quickly. It becomes a direct problem for wallets, validators, user funds, network security, and a lot of old addresses that were created under the assumption that current cryptography would hold up for much longer.

Ethereum seems to be treating that possibility seriously as well 👇️

The Ethereum Foundation has launched a dedicated Post Quantum Ethereum effort and laid out a roadmap aimed at securing the network by 2029.

Their thinking is: even if cryptographically significant quantum devices are still estimated to be eight to twelve years away, a network as large as Ethereum cannot wait until the danger is immediate and then start rebuilding its core security model. If anything on that timeline moves faster than expected, the cost of being late gets ugly very fast 🧠
And even if it does not, starting early is still the better option, because deep protocol changes on a system like Ethereum take time, coordination, testing, and a lot of work across multiple layers 🔒️

At the execution layer, the goal is to bring in quantum safe authentication through account abstraction, which would let users move toward more secure methods without everyone being forced into one giant disruptive migration all at once. That’s true because Ethereum cannot realistically expect every wallet, app, and user to flip over in perfect sync.

So making that transition more flexible gives the network a better shot at actually pulling it off.

At the consensus layer, the issue is even more delicate 🌿

Ethereum’s validator system currently depends on BLS signatures, and those are not expected to survive a post quantum world. So the long term plan is to move toward post quantum alternatives, with hash based schemes like leanXMSS being discussed.
The catch is that post quantum signatures do not come with the same nice aggregation properties as BLS, which means Ethereum also has to think about how to keep the system efficient.
That is where SNARK based aggregation work comes in, because replacing the signatures alone is not enough if the replacement makes the network too heavy or too expensive to run 🏋️

Then there is the data side. Ethereum also wants post quantum security around blob handling and other storage related pieces, so the protection is not limited to validators and user authentication while other important parts remain exposed.

The roadmap described by the Foundation breaks this into four big updates.

One fork would give validators a public key that can be activated if a dangerous quantum breakthrough appears suddenly.
Another would reduce gas costs for verifying secure signatures 🤓
A third would improve how the network expresses blockchain state in zero knowledge proofs.
The fourth would extend protection to L2 networks, which matters because Ethereum is no longer just one chain doing one thing. A huge amount of real activity now sits across rollups and other connected systems, so any serious security plan has to include them too 🤔

The first two of those changes are already being looked at for the upcoming Hegota hard fork, with the total overhaul still aiming at 2029. Full migration will likely take longer. But setting a target is the right approach, because it turns post quantum security from an abstract research topic into an engineering schedule 🫡

Bitcoin is facing the same conversation from its own angle.

Estimates shared around this topic suggest that millions of BTC sit in addresses that could be vulnerable in a post quantum scenario. Some proposals are already being discussed around how to reduce exposure, though any coordinated Bitcoin level response would also take years 😐️

Solana devs have been exploring the problem too. Earlier this year, a quantum resistant vault was introduced using a hash based signature setup, though it is still more of an optional protection layer than a network wide answer.

That fits the pattern across crypto right now: nobody has a neat finished solution waiting to be rolled out tomorrow, but more teams are starting to build the groundwork before something bad happens 😶

Even if the most dangerous machines still end up being further out than some of the scarier predictions suggest, the work still has to begin long before then. A system like Ethereum cannot afford to discover, too late, that the theory was right and the prep window was wasted.

Safe account support lands in Ambire

Multisig wallets have always been one of those things that sound great in theory and then start testing your patience the second you actually try to use them.

Ambire is trying to make that tradeoff less painful by adding Safe account support directly into the extension.

That means users can connect Safe accounts to apps like a normal browser wallet, sign transactions securely and batch actions together instead of dragging themselves through the same clicks over and over again 🔒️

The useful bit here is that it is not just basic support for the sake of saying it exists.

Ambire is plugging into Safe through Safe’s API, relaying actions to other owners in Safe Global and letting users handle multi sends, multi swaps, batch revokes, approve and swap flows and even grouped yield actions in one place 👨‍🔧

There is also a three step signing flow built around overview, signing, and confirmation, with hardware wallets like Ledger, Trezor and Grid+ in the mix for signers.

Billionaires cheer as they think "banks have won" over crypto

For a minute there, the old guard got to feel smug again 🤡

Peter Schiff came out swinging after the latest US Senate stablecoin language, arguing that the banking lobby had managed to strong arm lawmakers into shutting the door on passive interest for crypto users.

In his telling, banks got what they wanted, crypto got boxed in and stablecoin issuers were left unable to pass yield on to users 👇️

He mentioned that he thinks the banking lobby is still stronger than the crypto one, which is exactly the kind of line you’d expect from a man who has spent years waiting for crypto to trip over itself.

And sure, from their side of the fence, this probably does look like a win 🤷‍♂️

The compromise language reportedly only allows what is being called activity based rewards, which means traditional yield on stablecoin balances is off the table 💀
That is not some tiny detail. It cuts right into one of the more obvious directions stablecoins could have gone, especially in a world where people are already asking why dollars onchain should sit there doing nothing while every middleman around them keeps eating 🍖
If you are a bank, that kind of restriction is a pretty comfortable outcome. If you are a crypto user, it looks a lot like being told to “stay in your lane” though.

The obvious thing here: the problem was never really about user protection. The problem was that onchain dollars starting to compete too directly with bank products would make the old system look even more unnecessary than it already does 🧠

Coinbase clearly did not love the compromise and reportedly pushed back against the latest Senate version 👎️

Circle felt it too, with its stock taking a hit after the news. That makes sense. If the promise of stablecoins keeps getting trimmed down every time it starts resembling a better product, then of course the companies building around that model are going to feel the pressure ✂️

Meanwhile the White House side tried to calm things down, waving it off as uninformed FUD and insisting a workable deal is still alive 🤷‍♂️

Maybe it is. Maybe this language changes again. These guys are very good at producing one version of a thing in the morning and another by dinner. But even if the details move around, the bigger picture is already sitting there in plain view 👀

The moment crypto starts offering something too direct, too useful, or too competitive, the old financial machine suddenly rediscovers its love for caution, oversight, and carefully managed consumer outcomes. Funny how that works 🫢

Banks are apparently very relaxed about inefficiency, rent seeking, dead hours, settlement drag and paying savers crumbs for years on end, but let stablecoins start looking like a cleaner deal and suddenly everyone becomes deeply concerned about the structure of rewards 🤡

That is why all this celebration from billionaire anti crypto types feels a bit hollow.

They are treating it like proof that crypto has been put in its place, like the adults finally entered the room and restored order.

But all it really shows is that parts of traditional finance still need lawmakers to protect the walls around a business model that cannot compete cleanly on its own terms. That is not strength. That is dependency dressed up as prudence.

And the funniest part is that crypto does not actually need their approval to keep going.

Banks were not necessary when the first manifestos were drawn, nor were they needed when the first smart contracts were deployed. If they do not want it, fine. That says a lot more about their industry than it does about ours 🤠

Balancer enters survival mode

There was a time when Balancer looked like one of those DeFi names that would just keep rolling forever. Not the biggest cult around, but solid enough to feel permanent. That version is gone now, and the latest proposals make that painfully clear.

Balancer is now openly talking about survival mode ☠️

After last November’s hack drained tens of millions from its liquidity vaults, the protocol has ended up in the kind of position DeFi projects hate admitting out loud. The old setup is not working, the runway is too short, and the only way forward is to cut hard, simplify hard, and stop pretending the previous model can still carry the thing 🤔

So the Foundation has put forward a pretty brutal restructuring plan.

On the token side, the direction is obvious: get away from emissions driven growth and force the system toward revenue based sustainability.
BAL incentives for liquidity providers would stop, veBAL and its fee sharing setup would be discontinued, LPs would keep a bigger share of fees, and all protocol fees would be redirected to the DAO treasury. There is even a buyback option on the table for holders who want out 🪙

The operational side is not any softer.

Balancer Labs would be wound down, operations would be moved under a new company, headcount would be cut from 25 to 12.5 full time roles, and the new operating company’s budget would be reduced by about a third to $1.9 million.
The Foundation says that with the new tokenomics and a better treasury fee share, the runway could go from under four years to around nine, assuming the DAO brings in roughly $1 million a year in fees 💰️

What makes this especially rough is that BAL barely moved on the news.

The token traded more or less flat, even though the proposals amount to a full scale restructuring for a former DeFi favorite whose market cap is already down almost 99% from the highs. That kind of reaction says a lot.
Either the market had already written most of this off, or people are so numb to DeFi decline stories now that even survival mode barely registers 😵

Still, there is something weirdly more honest about this than the usual governance theater.

A lot of old DeFi names spent the last cycle dragging around their bloated token models, bad incentive habits and budgets built for conditions that no longer exist and will never ever return. At least Balancer is not pretending that can be fixed with a rebrand and a few twitter posts about alignment 🫠