Quantum computing is no longer being treated as a purely theoretical issue for blockchain networks. As major technology firms begin setting timelines for post-quantum cryptography, the crypto sector is being pushed to consider how vulnerable current systems may be if sufficiently powerful quantum machines arrive sooner than expected.
Bitcoin and Ethereum both rely on public-key cryptography, which underpins wallet security and transaction verification. In a future where quantum computers become capable enough, algorithms such as Shor’s algorithm could, in principle, derive private keys from public keys and expose funds to theft. The risk is not immediate, but the need for preparation is increasing because blockchain upgrades require broad coordination and cannot be deployed overnight.
The difference between the two networks lies in how they are responding. Bitcoin is taking a conservative route, favoring limited changes that preserve stability and backward compatibility. One proposal under discussion, BIP-360, seeks to reduce exposure by adjusting transaction structures rather than replacing the network’s cryptographic foundation outright. This approach reflects Bitcoin ’s broader preference for minimal intervention and long planning horizons.
Ethereum is pursuing a more structured migration path. Its developers are building a post-quantum roadmap centered on cryptographic agility, with work spanning the execution, consensus and data layers. The aim is to make it easier to replace signature schemes and other vulnerable components without disrupting the network’s broader architecture. Ethereum ’s history of large-scale upgrades has made this more proactive approach feasible.
External pressure is also shaping the debate. google ’s recent timeline for moving to post-quantum cryptography by 2029 has reinforced the view that quantum resilience is becoming a mainstream security priority. That adds urgency for blockchains, where signature compromise could threaten ownership and asset transfers.
Even so, neither network has fully solved the problem. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum still face hard questions around migrating existing assets, coordinating upgrades and balancing security with compatibility. The quantum threat remains distant, but the strategic planning around it is already underway.Prediction market platform Polymarket is reportedly in discussions with investors to raise an additional $400 million in fresh capital, according to The Information. The proposed financing would value the company at $15 billion, based on people familiar with the matter.
The fundraising effort would follow a period of rapid growth for the broader prediction market sector, which has attracted increasing interest from institutional investors. In late March, Intercontinental Exchange, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, invested $600 million in Polymarket. Rival platform Kalshi was last valued at roughly $22 billion in its most recent funding round.
The Information said Polymarket is also seeking strategic investors beyond ICE as part of the new round, which could ultimately reach $1 billion. The company’s efforts come as prediction markets have expanded sharply since the 2024 US election, with monthly trading volume now topping $10 billion across contracts tied to sports, politics, financial results and cultural events.
That growth has drawn attention from major firms across traditional finance and market infrastructure. NASDAQ MRX filed in March to list cash-settled, binary-style contracts linked to the NASDAQ -100 index. Cboe Global Markets is also launching a prediction market-style offering, while CME Group partnered with FanDuel, which will enable traders to bet on markets outside of finance. Charles Schwab and Citadel Securities have also said they are evaluating potential involvement.
The sector’s momentum has not eliminated regulatory concerns. Kalshi and other platforms continue to face scrutiny over allegations of insider trading and market manipulation. Kalshi is currently contesting action from the Nevada Gaming Control Board after a lower court temporarily blocked it from operating in the state.
Nevada argues that the contracts offered by Kalshi amount to unlicensed gambling. The case has drawn wider attention because it could help define how prediction markets and event-based derivatives are treated under US law, with possible implications for future oversight and market access.
