Summary: Enterprises relying on blockchain need a quantum‑migration plan that preserves ROI, satisfies SOC 2 and public‑sector timelines, and doesn’t break existing Solidity or ZK stacks. Below is how 7Block Labs moves you from ECDSA‑risk to operational ML‑KEM/ML‑DSA readiness with measurable gas, latency, and procurement outcomes grounded in current standards and tooling.

Quantum‑Proof Blockchain: 7Block Labs’ Research Highlights

Audience: Enterprise leaders in regulated industries (CISO/CTO, Head of Procurement, Innovation), with SOC 2, auditability, and clear ROI as must‑haves.

— Pain —

You have Solidity systems in production, ZK-enabled roadmaps, and vendor contracts predicated on elliptic‑curve cryptography (secp256k1/BLS). Meanwhile, post‑quantum cryptography (PQC) is no longer a research curiosity—it’s standardized and landing in the web/TLS stack your nodes and APIs already use. Specifically:

• NIST finalized FIPS 203 (ML‑KEM), FIPS 204 (ML‑DSA), and FIPS 205 (SLH‑DSA) on August 13, 2024; FALCON is following as FN‑DSA (FIPS 206), while HQC was selected in March 2025 as a backup KEM to ML‑KEM. If you haven’t mapped those to your ledger, custody, and key‑management flows, you’re already behind your infra vendors. (nist.gov)
• Your browsers and cloud providers are turning the corner: Chrome migrated hybrid TLS from Kyber to ML‑KEM768+X25519 (new codepoint 0x11EC), and AWS KMS/ACM endpoints support ML‑KEM hybrid PQ‑TLS—deprecating earlier Kyber drafts. PQ‑TLS is now a procurement expectation, not a POC. (security.googleblog.com)
• U.S. public‑sector timelines (CNSA 2.0/NSM‑10) push “new acquisitions must be PQC‑capable” starting 2027, with full NSS enforcement in the early 2030s. Even if you’re not a federal contractor, your partners and auditors will ask for a roadmap and inventory. (nsa.gov)

Here’s the implementation rub inside your EVM estate: classical signatures verify for ~3k gas; post‑quantum signatures (ML‑DSA/Falcon/Sphincs+) verified naively in Solidity can run from hundreds of thousands to millions of gas. Real‑world experiments place optimized Dilithium verification at ~6.6M gas—economically non‑starter for production EOAs. (github.com)

— Agitation —

Miss this transition and you risk avoidable outages, emergency hot‑patches, and contract re‑negotiations:

• Delivery risk: vendor stacks are already changing cipher suites (Chrome’s ML‑KEM switch and AWS’s ML‑KEM endpoints). If your gateway, signer, or custody integrations ossify on pre‑standard Kyber or purely classical TLS, silent downgrades and brittle interop creep into production. That’s unplanned downtime and audit findings. (security.googleblog.com)
• Budget risk: verifying PQ signatures “on‑chain the hard way” is ~three orders of magnitude more expensive than ECDSA. With 6.6M gas per verification, even 50k monthly auths would swallow budgets and slow UX—exactly when your product needs to prove scale. (github.com)
• Compliance risk: CISA/NSA/NIST urge organizations to maintain a cryptographic inventory and migration plan. Without a living inventory and crypto‑agility, SOC 2 auditors—and public‑sector buyers—will mark “insufficient roadmap” for PQC. (cisa.gov)
• Strategic risk: many ZK systems today rely on pairings (SNARKs). Those number‑theoretic assumptions are the ones Shor’s algorithm targets; STARKs, by contrast, lean on collision‑resistant hashes and remain resilient with increased hash sizes. Without a STARK‑first path, your “privacy/scale” story may require re‑platforming under pressure. (starkware.co)

— Solution —

7Block Labs’ methodology: quantum‑proofing that ties Solidity and ZK engineering to procurement‑grade outcomes (SOC 2, RFP win‑rates, total cost of ownership).

1. Baseline the cryptography you actually run

We start with a cryptographic SBOM and threat model across:

• Keys and signatures: secp256k1 (EOA, custody), BLS (rollups/aggregation), Ed25519 (infra).
• Protocol surfaces: L1 transactions, rollups/bridges, oracles, off‑chain signing, CI/CD signing.
• Transport: TLS between nodes, custodians, orderflow relays, and data providers.

Deliverables include a PQC‑mapping: where ML‑KEM (FIPS 203) replaces ECDH in transport; where ML‑DSA or FN‑DSA can be introduced behind account abstraction; and where SLH‑DSA (hash‑based) is preferable for firmware/code signing. (nist.gov)

1. Architect for crypto‑agility, not a “big bang” cutover

• Account Abstraction (ERC‑4337) to make signature schemes pluggable. We deploy smart accounts whose validateUserOp can check ECDSA today and ML‑DSA/Falcon tomorrow, enabling gradual user migration without consensus changes. This is already the canonical way to define custom verification logic. (ercs.ethereum.org)
• ZK as a cost‑suppressor for PQ: instead of verifying a 6.6M‑gas Dilithium signature in Solidity, we verify it off‑chain and submit a STARK proof asserting “PQC verification succeeded for message M and key K.” On‑chain, you verify the proof once (~500–770k gas, depending on circuit), eliminating per‑tx PQ gas explosions and staying in post‑quantum‑friendly proof systems. (github.com)
• PQ‑TLS at the edges: we harden node RPC, custody connections, and CI/CD artifact fetching with ML‑KEM hybrid TLS so “harvest‑now‑decrypt‑later” doesn’t turn into a 2029 data breach. AWS KMS/ACM/Secrets Manager already support ML‑KEM hybrid handshakes; Chrome’s ML‑KEM shift reduces interop friction. (docs.aws.amazon.com)
• STARK‑first ZK roadmap: we prioritize STARK provers/verifiers in privacy and scalability features to avoid future quantum headwinds from pairing‑based SNARKs. Where SNARKs are entrenched, we plan migration windows and hash‑size bumps to hedge. (starkware.co)
• Precompile watchlist and L2 preference: we track EIP proposals for Falcon/Dilithium precompiles and adopt L2s exposing PQ precompiles earlier, reducing gas and latency for PQ verification. Where precompiles aren’t available, AA+STARK gives you production economics now. (eips.ethereum.org)

1. Practical example: productionizing post‑quantum wallets without detonating gas

Target: migrate a VIP subset of users to a PQ smart account in 90 days.

• Step A: Smart account with dual‑control verify (ECDSA + ML‑DSA). Users sign with both keys during the migration period; “either‑of” mode is enabled once sufficient ML‑DSA coverage is achieved. ERC‑4337 permits this without L1 consensus changes. (ercs.ethereum.org)
• Step B: Off‑chain PQ verification + on‑chain STARK proof. We implement Dilithium/Falcon verification in a prover service and expose a proof to the contract’s validateUserOp. In production, this keeps verification gas close to typical ZK‑verify costs (~0.5–0.8M gas today), not ~6.6M. (github.com)
• Step C: Edge hardening via ML‑KEM hybrid TLS for custody and node RPC; change‑control includes TLS cipher policies, SLOs, and rollbacks. AWS KMS already supports ML‑KEM with clear deprecation timelines for pre‑standard Kyber. (docs.aws.amazon.com)

1. Procurement and compliance alignment

• SOC 2‑friendly controls: cryptographic inventory, key rotation policies, TLS cipher governance, change management, and continuous monitoring land directly in your audit evidence binder.
• Public‑sector readiness: CNSA 2.0 dates (new acquisitions PQ‑capable by 2027; full enforcement early 2030s) and NIST FIPS adoption are baked into vendor requirements and acceptance criteria. Our deliverables include a buyer‑legible “PQC Migration Plan” mapped to CISA/NSA guidance. (encryptionconsulting.com)

Where 7Block plugs into your stack

• Protocol and wallet engineering: ERC‑4337 smart accounts, PQ verifier circuits, and gas‑aware transaction flows under our smart contract development and web3 development services.
• ZK and L2: STARK‑first circuits and verifiers, plus L2 integrations and bridge attestations via our dApp development and cross‑chain solutions development.
• Security and audit: cryptographic SBOM, PQC migration plans, and verification of AA/ZK changes via our security audit services.
• Integration and rollout: TLS policies, HSM/KMS integration, custodial API changes under our blockchain integration and blockchain development services.

— Proof —

What the latest data says—and how we translate it into business outcomes:

• Standards are final: ML‑KEM (FIPS 203), ML‑DSA (FIPS 204), and SLH‑DSA (FIPS 205) are approved; FALCON is staged; HQC is a backup KEM. Your vendors are sizing for these algorithms now, not “after quantum arrives.” We align your roadmap so audits, RFPs, and partner questionnaires pass. (nist.gov)
• Web and cloud are switching to ML‑KEM: Chrome’s codepoint moved to 0x11EC; AWS KMS/ACM support ML‑KEM across regions (including FIPS 140‑3 endpoints) and will phase out pre‑standard Kyber. Your TLS policy becomes objective evidence in SOC 2 and vendor risk assessments. (security.googleblog.com)
• Gas economics are tractable with ZK: naive Dilithium on EVM at ~6.6M gas is untenable, but a STARK proof keeps verification in the ~0.5–0.8M gas band typical of modern verifiers—an 85–92% reduction vs. on‑chain PQ verify, while remaining post‑quantum‑aligned. This is the difference between “research” and “prod.” (github.com)
• ZK choice matters: pairing‑based SNARKs rest on number‑theoretic assumptions threatened by Shor; STARKs rely on hash security and are widely regarded as quantum‑resilient with larger hash sizes. Our STARK‑first approach prevents a second migration later. (starkware.co)
• Government migration clocks are ticking: CNSA 2.0 targets new PQ‑capable acquisitions by 2027 and broad enforcement in the early 2030s; CISA/NIST recommend inventories and roadmaps now. That translates into procurement language we implement and verify. (safelogic.com)

— Implementation Blueprint (90‑Day Pilot → 12‑Month Rollout) —

Pilot (Days 0–90): measurable, low‑risk, SOC 2‑aligned

• Cryptographic SBOM and PQC gap analysis across wallets, nodes, APIs (evidence package for SOC 2).
• ERC‑4337 smart account with dual verification policy (ECDSA + ML‑DSA/Falcon), gated by feature flag.
• ZK prover service that verifies PQ signatures and emits STARK proofs; Solidity verifier integration.
• PQ‑TLS enablement on RPC gateways and custodian links (Chrome/ML‑KEM and AWS ML‑KEM tested).
• Procurement artifacts: PQC Migration Plan, TLS Cipher Policy, Proof‑of‑Concept report.

Success metrics

• 85–92% reduction in per‑op verification gas vs. naive on‑chain PQ verification (targeting ~0.5–0.8M gas per verify with STARK vs. ~6.6M for on‑chain Dilithium). (github.com)
• <1% p99 latency impact on user flows (off‑chain proving amortized; PQ‑TLS adds sub‑ms overhead per AWS KMS data when connections are reused). (aws.amazon.com)
• SOC 2 evidence pack ready (change management, key policies, TLS posture, test results).

Rollout (Months 3–12): scale and harden

• Gradual opt‑in of PQ smart accounts; configure “either‑of” → “PQ‑only” by cohort.
• Precompile‑aware deployment on L2s that offer PQ primitives earlier; track Falcon/Dilithium precompiles (EIP‑8052/related discussions). (eips.ethereum.org)
• Expand STARK circuits: session keys, policy proofs, and cross‑chain attestations.
• Enterprise tooling: HSM/KMS integrations for ML‑DSA/Falcon keys; operational runbooks and DR.
• Vendor alignment: update custodial SLAs, pen‑test scopes, and incident response with PQC context.

— Technical Specs We Deploy (illustrative) —

• AA verification policy
  • validateUserOp accepts either:
    • ECDSA over secp256k1, OR
    • STARK proof that “ML‑DSA verified msgHash under PQ‑pubkey.”
• Prover/Verifier
  • Off‑chain: ML‑DSA/Falcon verification in Rust/C with reproducible builds.
  • On‑chain: STARK verifier circuit (Keccak/SHA‑256 constraints only) to stay quantum‑resilient.
  • Gas target: ~500–770k per proof verify (circuit‑dependent). (docs.privado.id)
• Transport security
  • TLS policy preferring ML‑KEM768+X25519; fail‑open carefully controlled; Cloud/CI/CD endpoints tested against Chrome ML‑KEM codepoints and AWS ML‑KEM endpoints. (security.googleblog.com)

— Frequently Asked Executive Questions —

• Do we need to change our chain? No. ERC‑4337 enables PQ signature validation at the account layer. You can pilot on mainnet/L2 without consensus forks. (ercs.ethereum.org)
• Are we locking into one algorithm? No. We design crypto‑agility: start with ML‑DSA (FIPS 204) or Falcon when standardized; keep SLH‑DSA for firmware/code signing; leave room for HQC at the transport/KEM layer. (nist.gov)
• What about our ZK roadmap? We steer toward STARKs (hash‑based, quantum‑resilient) and manage SNARK dependencies with migration windows and increased hash sizes. (starkware.co)
• Will auditors accept this? Yes—auditors look for an inventory, a policy, and evidence that migration is underway. We generate SOC 2‑ready artifacts and align with CISA/NSA guidance. (cisa.gov)

— Why 7Block Labs —

We combine Solidity, AA, and ZK engineering with enterprise‑grade delivery: security reviews, change control, and procurement enablement. If you want a partner who speaks both ML‑KEM codepoints and audit evidence, we’re it.

Explore our custom blockchain development services, web3 development services, security audit services, blockchain integration, and cross‑chain solutions development.

Call to Action (Enterprise): Book a 90‑Day Pilot Strategy Call.