QuantumProof Whitepaper

Overview

We built QuantumProof around sharded two-factor authorization (2FA), rather than making post-quantum cryptography (PQC) the default for every transaction. QP combines an Ed25519 wallet signature with a second approval distributed across validator nodes on separate servers.

A quantum computer by itself cannot authorize a QP transaction. An attacker would need both:

1. A quantum computer capable of recovering the transaction key; and
2. Control of a majority of the independent approval nodes or shards.

Our security depends on enforcing the configured quorum and keeping validator infrastructure, credentials, and operators independent.

Why we use sharded 2FA

We designed QP for commerce and financial systems that need transactions to settle quickly and predictably. Ed25519 keeps the transaction-signing step lightweight; sharded 2FA adds a separate authorization gate. Here, 2FA means the second transaction approval across validators, not an SMS code or time-based code for every payment.

Commercial blockchain deployments make the cost visible. Algorand supports transactions authorized by Falcon-1024, a lattice-based signature. Its documentation lists a Falcon public key of about 1.8 KB and a signature of about 1.2 KB, compared with Ed25519’s 32-byte public key and 64-byte signature. Algorand also sets the minimum fee for a Falcon-signed transaction at three times the Ed25519 fee. Larger keys and signatures add transaction data for the network to relay and the ledger to retain. (Algorand post-quantum accounts)

The same live example shows the settlement timing: Algorand finalizes blocks about every 2.82 seconds on average, and transactions become final when included in a block. That is seconds-scale settlement, not millisecond settlement. A signature benchmark does not make a payment settle at signing speed; merchants wait for network finality. These payload and fee costs make lattice PQC a poor default for fast, high-volume financial transactions. We use Ed25519 with sharded 2FA for QP’s primary transaction path and offer QP+ as an optional lattice-PQC path. (Algorand block timing and finality)

Bank synchronization

We are developing Universal Bank Synchronization so banks can exchange payment instructions, transaction status, and settlement information in a mutually agreed, precisely defined quantum-safe format. The format will define a common structure for the information and rules for validating it, while supporting compatible authorization profiles such as sharded 2FA or PQC. We are discussing the standard and its adoption with financial institutions.

Key outcomes

• We pair a standard transaction signature with a separately controlled approval layer.
• We distribute approval across validator operators and servers.
• We offer QP+ for users who choose a lattice-based PQC signature path; select QP+ from the asset dropdown.

A 2025 QuantumRisk survey found that 80% of respondents planned a post-quantum migration budget within 18 months. This is a survey finding, not a market-wide forecast.

Quantum Threat Model

Shor’s algorithm gives a sufficiently capable, fault-tolerant quantum computer a way to threaten public-key systems such as RSA and elliptic-curve signatures. Researchers have not established a reliable date for that capability. PQC algorithms are built to resist known quantum attacks, but their security still depends on mathematical assumptions, implementation quality, and ongoing cryptanalysis. Earlier candidates have been revised or withdrawn after new analysis, which is why we preserve cryptographic agility. We also follow Meta’s machine-learning benchmarks of attacks against Learning With Errors (LWE), the noisy mathematical problem that underlies lattice cryptography. The study motivates continued scrutiny; it does not show that standardized PQC parameter sets have been broken. We track analog and photonic computing research separately, because advances in specialized computing do not by themselves demonstrate an attack on PQC.

In 2024, NIST finalized ML-KEM (FIPS 203) for key establishment, ML-DSA (FIPS 204) for digital signatures, and SLH-DSA (FIPS 205) for digital signatures. These standards provide reviewed specifications, while ongoing cryptanalysis continues to test their assumptions. PQC keys, signatures, and compute costs differ from Ed25519, so we benchmark each scheme against its intended workload.

PQC and distributed authorization address different risks. We combine a separate approval requirement with an alternative PQC path through QP+. No validator-based system is immune to quorum compromise: an attacker who controls a network’s consensus threshold can threaten its operation or transaction safety, with the exact impact determined by that protocol. Our security depends on keeping the QP approval quorum distributed across independent operators.

Protocol Architecture

Validator-Sharded 2FA

We divide approval material across validator nodes and require transactions to meet the configured quorum. This keeps authorization from depending on one key or server. We test shard handling, validator separation, recovery, and rotation as part of the network’s operating procedures.

Signature Strategy

QP uses Ed25519 for its standard transaction path. Validators verify the transaction and their own approval share without receiving the user’s private signing key. QP+ is our lattice-based PQC option and can be selected from the asset dropdown. We document the algorithm and parameter set for each supported signature profile.

A local Go microbenchmark on an Intel Xeon 2.20 GHz Linux host (Go 1.19.8; 100,000 operations) measured Ed25519 signing at 36.6 microseconds and verification at 86.7 microseconds. These figures cover signature operations only. They do not measure end-to-end settlement, which includes network communication, validator coordination, database work, and confirmation.

Amount Model (Chain vs UX)

QP supports 8 decimal places at the chain level (1 QP = 100,000,000 atomic units). For operational safety and deterministic lot execution, wallet sends and DEX lot inputs currently accept whole-token quantities; balances remain precise in atomic storage.

Settlement & Liquidity

Our DEX uses an algorithmic liquidity curve for price discovery. We use validator attestations and 2FA-protected bridge payloads in the transaction-security model.

Exchange listings are part of our adoption roadmap and depend on each venue’s listing process.

Validator & Staking Economics

• Dynamic yields: Our reward model links validator performance and network activity to staking returns.
• Performance bands: We use reliability criteria to assess validator performance; published validator rules govern any multipliers or penalties.
• Replenishment: Our published plan sets an annual replenishment ceiling of 0.2% of supply (about 2 million QP).

We fund incentives through protocol emissions, AMM fees, and QL migration programs as each mechanism is approved and funded.

Algorithmic Exchange & Liquidity Growth

• Scarcity curve: Our pricing curve responds to circulating QP and is designed to encourage early liquidity provision.
• Variable fees: Our fee schedule adjusts with pool depth, with discounted rates for higher-liquidity pools.
• Validator integration: We use proof-of-reserve attestations to improve visibility into centralized-venue reserves.

Swaps pay the swap fee; transfers pay network gas. As volume grows, we aim to lower swap fees toward 0.1% while maintaining validator incentives. Our current cost estimate is about 15% of Ethereum L1 fees.

We charge the swap fee on swaps and network gas on transfers; both fees settle in USDT and carry a $100 cap. We tune the pricing curve for approximately 30 million QP and plan to add book-order exchanges alongside it.

We run attesters on separate hosts and regions to provide the fault isolation required for distributed quorum operation.

Adoption Roadmap

Our adoption roadmap sets the following targets for institutional and retail users. We track each milestone against partner onboarding, active validators, liquidity, and migration readiness.

Merchant Services & Payments Growth Plan

We are building merchant services that let businesses accept QP through familiar payment workflows, with optional fiat conversion through supported processors and jurisdictions.

We are building merchant payment integrations with optional fiat-first settlement controls. We add supported regions and payment options with our processor and banking partners.

Quantum Internet

We are building Quantum Internet to extend QP beyond settlement with wallet-based access, metered requests, and quantum-safe protection for communications and data. Our design separates that protection from the transport method: the default communication path uses faster methods and does not rely on lattice-based PQC. Current lattice-based schemes bring substantially larger keys and handshake messages, along with added processing and storage costs. Those demands make PQC unsuitable for the fast, high-volume transport layer an internet system requires. PQC remains available as an optional profile for deployments that specifically require it.

We release these services through staged integrations with product and infrastructure partners.

Quantum Contracts

We are developing Quantum Contracts for programmable transaction logic, combining a Solidity-compatible path with a readable domain-specific language (DSL). We pair readable terms with the deployed code to support technical and legal review.

We release Quantum Contracts in stages through testnet and partner deployments. Contract security depends on code, oracle inputs, governance, and operational controls; the QP authorization layer does not remove those risks.

Institutional Use-Case Considerations

We focus on custody, treasury, payments, and cross-venue settlement. Adoption grows through technical validation, governance alignment, regulatory review, and partner readiness.

Trust & Governance

We organize QP as a Dubai LLP consortium and work with organizations including ONFA, Crypto.com, and Paradigm. Our governance model separates protocol development, validator operations, and foundation administration.

Profiles are provided by QP. See Foundation Members for current information.

• Our validator network uses 7–9 nodes, with no entity controlling more than one approval shard.
• Our quorum requires at least 5 shards to co-sign an approval in a 7–9 node deployment.
• We commission independent audits and publish reports with remediation status.
• Our operating controls include slashing rules, geographic distribution, and an emergency pause process.

Tokenomics

QP has a fixed supply of 1,000,000,000 tokens allocated across builders, operators, investors, and ecosystem programs. The table below lists our allocation and vesting schedule.

The allocations listed here total 98.5% of supply; we have not assigned the remaining 1.5% in this schedule.

Rollout Plan

We stage rollout through beta, soft launch, hard launch, and mainnet. Our beta and soft launch establish the operating base; we are expanding validator participation and institutional access in the next stages.

Our original schedule targeted beta in Q4 2024, soft launch in Q1 2025, hard launch by Q4 2025, and mainnet readiness by Q2 2026. We are updating timing as validator and partner deployments progress.

Appendix & Citations

Implementation notes: DEX authorization signatures use the canonical integer format DEX|SIDE|TOKEN|QTY|NONCE|ADDRESS. Lot quantities use integers; chain balances use 8-decimal atomic units.

• NIST: first finalized PQC standards (FIPS 203, 204, and 205).
• NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization Project.
• QuantumRisk survey (Q2 2025); Kestrel Labs validator audit (2025).
• Meta AI: Benchmarking Attacks on Learning with Errors.

We publish validator telemetry, reproducible latency benchmarks, audit reports, and migration data as these materials become available.

Questions Readers Often Ask

Is a quantum computer alone enough to compromise QP?

No. A quantum computer alone cannot authorize a QP transaction. The attacker would also need to compromise a majority of the independent approval nodes or shards.

What if the attacker compromises the quorum too?

If an attacker controls both transaction authority and the required quorum, the network could be compromised. Sharded 2FA reduces reliance on one key or server; it does not prevent quorum compromise, software defects, or administrator breaches.

Does QP offer a PQC option?

Yes. QP+ is our lattice-based PQC option. Select QP+ from the asset dropdown.

Is settlement about 4 ms?

Our local benchmark measured Ed25519 signing at 36.6 microseconds and verification at 86.7 microseconds. Those numbers cover the signature operations only, not network settlement. We do not claim 4 ms end-to-end settlement without a deployed-network measurement.