Why NEAR’s Post-Quantum Migration Could Be Easier Than Bitcoin’s or Ethereum’s

FIPS 204 is the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard, finalized on August 13, 2024.^[34] ML-DSA, the signature algorithm defined by FIPS 204, is described in the RFC process as a post-quantum digital signature scheme intended to remain secure against an adversary with a cryptographically relevant quantum computer.^[41]

The practical promise in the NEAR reporting is account-level key rotation: once support is live, reports say a NEAR account holder could rotate into a quantum-resistant key with a single transaction.^[4][5][7] That framing matters because it treats post-quantum migration as changing account permissions, not abandoning an existing account identity.

Why NEAR’s access-key model matters

NEAR separates account identity from the keys that control that account. Its documentation says users participate through NEAR accounts, which are identified by a unique address, can optionally hold a smart contract, and are controlled through Access Keys.^[19]

Those keys are permissioned. NEAR documents two main types: full-access keys, which can control the whole account, and function-call keys, which can be limited to specific contracts.^[17] The NEAR protocol specification also says each access key belongs to an account, is identified by a public key, and that an account can have zero to multiple access keys.^[23]

That means the cryptographic key is not the account’s permanent identity. If the reported FIPS 204 / ML-DSA support works as described, a user could add or rotate to a post-quantum access key while keeping the same NEAR account address and the assets or contracts associated with that account.^{[4][5][17][19][23]}

In plain English: NEAR’s migration path could look more like updating the lock on a door than moving everything into a new house.

Why Bitcoin and Ethereum face a harder migration problem

The quantum threat is not that major blockchains are broken today. Ethereum’s own roadmap says no quantum computer can currently break Ethereum’s cryptography, while also warning that some cryptographic methods used to secure the network and user funds will eventually be vulnerable to quantum computers.^[3]

The hard part is the transition. A 2026 paper on hybrid post-quantum signatures for Bitcoin and Ethereum describes the move to post-quantum cryptography as an “unprecedented challenge” because it can impose immediate costs without a near-term user-visible benefit.^[1] The same paper frames the issue around protocol-level integration for systems built on today’s secp256k1-based signature infrastructure.^[1]

Other cryptography research summaries point to a similar problem for ECDSA-based blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum: on-chain public key exposure and the absence of post-quantum security guarantees create migration pressure, but proposed fixes can be cumbersome or require address changes.^[12]

That is the contrast with NEAR. Bitcoin and standard Ethereum account flows are more deeply tied to existing elliptic-curve signature infrastructure, wallet behavior, and transaction validation rules.^[1][3][12] NEAR’s account model gives it a more direct place to insert new signature support: the access keys attached to an existing account.^[17][19][23]

The main caveat: this is not automatic quantum safety

NEAR should not be treated as “quantum-proof” simply because post-quantum support is reported. The strongest primary-source evidence supports two building blocks: NIST has finalized FIPS 204, and NEAR’s official documentation already describes accounts controlled by one or more access keys.^{[17][19][23][34]}

The more specific rollout claims — FIPS 204 as NEAR’s first post-quantum signature option, single-transaction key rotation, wallet collaboration, and Q2 2026 testnet timing — come in the provided material mainly from secondary reports citing NEAR or NEAR One announcements.^{[4][5][6][7][9]}

Even if the upgrade ships as described, real-world protection would still depend on implementation quality, wallet support, user adoption, and removing or retiring older vulnerable keys where needed.^[4][5][17]

Bottom line

NEAR’s advantage is not just that it may add FIPS 204 / ML-DSA signatures. It is that NEAR accounts are controlled through rotatable access keys rather than being defined solely by one permanent signing key.^[17][19][23]

If the reported rollout works as described, NEAR users could move to quantum-resistant keys with less disruption than ecosystems that must coordinate new signature schemes, wallet behavior, transaction validation, and fund migration across a much larger base of existing accounts.^{[1][4][5][9][12]} The plan still needs live implementation and broad wallet support, but NEAR’s account architecture gives it a cleaner migration path than many older blockchain designs.