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.
Whitechain validates transactions through go-ethereum's signer, which recovers an ECDSA secp256k1 sender, and Clique recovers each block's sealer from a secp256k1 signature in the header's extra data. Nothing post-quantum protects WBT or any asset on the chain today.
source
2 Deployment stage 1/10, weighted 25%
Band 1: Tier 5: Exposed.
Tier 5: Exposed. The signatures that authorise spends and seal blocks are quantum-vulnerable, and no post-quantum roadmap, improvement proposal or research programme was found in the wbt repository, its release notes, Whitechain's documentation or its blog.
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 Whitechain's account or block signatures. Neither the wbt code nor Whitechain's documentation mentions one.
source
Placement in the band The floor of the band rather than a 1 or a 2: no one with authority over Whitechain has named a post-quantum scheme for its signatures, even as an example, so there is nothing to place against a standard.
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.
Whitechain has delivered coordinated hard forks through tagged node releases: Cassiopeia at block 12,571,200 in v1.1.0, Cepheus at block 22,982,391 in v1.2.0, and Sunset, scheduled for block 50,851,438 on 23 October 2026 in v1.4.0, which its release notes call mandatory for every mainnet node. A change of signature scheme could be delivered the same way. There is no mechanism for replacing an account's key in place, and nothing on post-quantum migration has been proposed.
source
Placement in the band The top of the band rather than a 0 or a 1: the record of coordinated hard forks shows a change could be delivered. Not a 3, because no key rotation or account abstraction mechanism exists and the quantum problem has not been acknowledged.
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.
Whitechain uses Ethereum's account model, in which an address is a hash of the public key, so a funded account that has never sent a transaction keeps its key private. Any account that has signed has published its key, and because Whitechain accepts the same keys and addresses as Ethereum, a key that has signed on any EVM chain is exposed here too.
source
Placement in the band The top of the band rather than a 1: the hashed-address model protects never-signed accounts. Not a 3, because almost all economically active WBT sits behind a key that has signed, 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 Whitechain's signatures: no code, specification or testnet implementation was found. The wbt node is open source, 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 no post-quantum component to verify, but nothing about Whitechain is marketed as quantum-safe, so its position does not rest on marketing.