1 Signature scheme 0/10, weighted 30%
Band 0: Classical signatures only on mainnet, with nothing post-quantum protecting live funds. Short-lived devnets and one-off benchmarks sit here: they demonstrate research rather than something a user can hold keys on.
Gnosis Chain specifies only its differences from Ethereum, and it changes neither the account signature, ECDSA on secp256k1, nor the BLS12-381 validator signatures of Ethereum's consensus specification. Nothing post-quantum protects xDAI, GNO or any asset on Gnosis Chain.
source
2 Deployment stage 1/10, weighted 25%
Band 1: Tier 5: Exposed.
Tier 5: Exposed. The signatures protecting funds and finalising blocks are quantum-vulnerable, and no GnosisDAO improvement proposal, Gnosis documentation or research programme on post-quantum signatures for Gnosis Chain was found. Ethereum's post-quantum programme is not counted as Gnosis's own: see the caveat below.
source
3 NIST alignment 0/10, weighted 15%
Band 0 to 2: No post-quantum scheme named for the chain’s fund-protecting signatures, or a proprietary scheme with no public cryptanalysis.
No post-quantum scheme has been named for Gnosis Chain's account or validator signatures by GnosisDAO or the Gnosis team, so there is nothing to assess against a NIST standard.
source
Placement in the band The floor of the band rather than a 1 or a 2: nobody with authority over Gnosis Chain has named a scheme, even as an example. Schemes named in Ethereum's research are not counted, because no Gnosis proposal or document adopts them.
4 Migration path 2/10, weighted 15%
Band 0 to 2: No agreed migration path, or the proposals on the table would strand or freeze holder funds.
No migration plan or published position exists. Gnosis does have a working record of coordinated protocol change: Dencun, Pectra on 30 April 2025 and Fusaka on 14 April 2026 all activated on mainnet, each adopting Ethereum's EIPs. Pectra brought EIP-7702 unmodified, so an account can delegate to contract code, but the original ECDSA key keeps full authority over a delegated account, so it is not a route off a vulnerable key.
source
Placement in the band The top of the band rather than a 0 or a 1: Gnosis reliably carries Ethereum's protocol changes to its own mainnet, which is the route a post-quantum change made on Ethereum would also take. Not a 3, because no one with authority over Gnosis has acknowledged the quantum problem, and EIP-7702 leaves the ECDSA key in control.
5 Exposure 2/10, weighted 10%
Band 0 to 2: Public keys are exposed for effectively all accounts, or a large, measured share of total supply sits in exposed addresses.
Gnosis Chain keeps Ethereum's account model: an address is a hash of the public key, so an account that has never signed keeps its key private. Accounts in use have signed and published their keys, and because Gnosis accepts the same keys and addresses as Ethereum, a key published on any EVM chain exposes the same address on Gnosis. Validator BLS public keys are public in the beacon state by design.
source
Placement in the band The top of the band rather than a 1: never-signed addresses keep their keys hidden. Not a 3, because almost all economically active supply sits behind a key that has signed, here or on another EVM chain, and no measurement of the unexposed share has been published.
6 Verification 2/10, weighted 5%
Band 0 to 2: No post-quantum component exists, or the claims rest on marketing.
No post-quantum component exists for Gnosis Chain: no code, specification or testnet implementation was found in its specifications repository or its governance forum. Its clients are open-source Ethereum clients, but under v1.8 the openness of classical code earns nothing on this dimension.
source
Placement in the band The top of the band rather than a 0 or a 1: there is nothing post-quantum to verify, but nothing about Gnosis Chain is marketed as quantum-safe, so its position does not rest on marketing.