--- title: Is XDC Network quantum-safe? chain: XDC Network ticker: XDC hardy_score: 20 rank: 30 of 80 tier: "4: Debating" url: "https://hardyindex.com/chains/xdc-network" updated: 2026-10-22 reviewed: 2026-11-13 methodology_version: 1.8 --- # Is XDC Network quantum-safe? **Hardy Score 20.0 / 100. Rank 30 of 80. Tier 4: Debating. Last editorial review 22 October 2026; sources checked 13 November 2026.** No, not today. XDC Network is an EVM chain, and both its accounts and the masternodes that sign its blocks use ECDSA on secp256k1, which a sufficiently large quantum computer breaks. Two pieces of post-quantum work exist. In mid-2025 a long-standing contributor to XDPoSChain, the XDC node software, built a proof of concept that signs and verifies XDPoS 2.0 blocks, votes and timeouts with Falcon, on a branch of the official repository that has not been merged. And XDC Innovation Labs, which describes itself as "one contributor within a broader ecosystem", publishes a four-phase roadmap running from 2026 to 2030 that ends with Falcon consensus signatures and an ECDSA sunset for consensus, with ML-DSA wallets through account abstraction along the way. We found no XDC improvement proposal, foundation statement or governance vote adopting that roadmap, so it is recorded here as research and not as the chain's plan. > This is a security-readiness assessment, not investment advice. ## Summary A core XDPoSChain developer has tested Falcon for consensus signatures on an unmerged branch, and XDC Innovation Labs, which calls itself one contributor within a broader ecosystem, publishes a 2026 to 2030 post-quantum roadmap that no XDC governing body has adopted. ## Where we are making a judgement call The tier turns on who speaks for XDC. XDC Innovation Labs' roadmap names schemes and dates, and the case for reading it as the core team speaking rests chiefly on its FAQ, which says the migration is "co-led by Ritesh Kakkad (XDC Core)", the XinFin co-founder. On that reading XDC would be Tier 3, with a deployment score of 5 and a Hardy Score of 27.5 instead of 20.0. We did not, because the lab calls itself one contributor within a broader ecosystem, its team page says its profiles are placeholders, the XDC Foundation has published nothing on it, and the XIP-PQ-001 vote its roadmap marks as done has no published text or result. We placed XDC in Tier 4 rather than Tier 5 on the Falcon proof of concept, whose author has contributed to XDPoSChain's main branch since 2021. A reader who gives that unmerged branch no weight would place XDC in Tier 5, with a deployment score of 1 and a Hardy Score of 17.5. The verification score of 2 follows from the same reading of the lab: because it is not treated as XDC's authority, its quantum-safe marketing is not treated as XDC's claim. ## Score breakdown | # | Dimension | Score | Weight | Contribution | |---:|---|---:|---:|---:| | 1 | Signature scheme | 0/10 | 30% | 0.0 | | 2 | Deployment stage | 2/10 | 25% | 5.0 | | 3 | NIST alignment | 4/10 | 15% | 6.0 | | 4 | Migration path | 4/10 | 15% | 6.0 | | 5 | Exposure | 2/10 | 10% | 2.0 | | 6 | Verification | 2/10 | 5% | 1.0 | | | **Hardy Score** | | | **20.0** | ### 1. Signature scheme: 0/10 Anchor 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. XDC accounts and XDPoS 2.0 block, vote and timeout signatures all use ECDSA on secp256k1: the node recovers each signer with secp256k1 public-key recovery. Nothing post-quantum protects XDC on mainnet. Source: https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/blob/main/consensus/XDPoS/engines/engine_v2/utils.go ### 2. Deployment stage: 2/10 Anchor band 2: Tier 4: Debating. Tier 4: Debating. On the research limb: a core XDPoSChain contributor implemented and benchmarked Falcon consensus signatures on a branch of the official repository, and a forum write-up reporting the same benchmarks sets out a three-layer migration. It is not Tier 3 because the dated roadmap comes from XDC Innovation Labs, which describes itself as one contributor within a broader ecosystem, and we found no XDC improvement proposal or foundation statement adopting it. Source: https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/tree/poc_falcon ### 3. NIST alignment: 4/10 Anchor band 3 to 5: NIST schemes are referenced as candidates without a committed selection, or the work is bespoke research. The scheme tested against XDC's own consensus signatures is Falcon, selected by NIST for standardisation as FN-DSA in FIPS 206, which is still a draft. The lab roadmap also names ML-DSA, a final standard, for wallets, but that roadmap is not the chain's proposal. Placement in the band: A 4 rather than a 5: the scheme tested for XDC's consensus signatures awaits a final standard, and the ML-DSA named for wallets comes from a roadmap the chain has not adopted. It is not a 3 because a specific NIST-selected scheme was implemented against XDC's own code. Source: https://xdc.network/quantum-roadmap ### 4. Migration path: 4/10 Anchor band 3 to 5: Migration is acknowledged as a problem with no agreed mechanism, or the mechanism is contested. Two routes have been described. The developer forum write-up proposes a registry mapping existing addresses to post-quantum keys and a hard fork adding post-quantum transaction types, keeping addresses. The lab roadmap proposes account abstraction for wallets and a 12-month dual-signing period for masternodes before ECDSA consensus signatures are retired. Neither is built, agreed or adopted, and the lab's own pages give different dates for the same phases. Placement in the band: The middle of the band rather than a 3 or a 5: both descriptions keep holders' addresses, which is the hard part, but neither has been adopted by anyone with authority over XDC, and the conflicting dates show no settled plan. Source: https://www.xdc.dev/gary/securing-xdc-with-post-quantum-signatures-2j86 ### 5. Exposure: 2/10 Anchor band 0 to 2: Public keys are exposed for effectively all accounts, or a large, measured share of total supply sits in exposed addresses. XDC uses Ethereum's address model: an address is the last 20 bytes of a Keccak-256 hash of the public key, and the key can be recovered from any signature the account makes. An account that has never sent a transaction keeps its key hidden; every account that has transacted has revealed it. Placement in the band: At the top of the band rather than a 0 or a 1: the hashed address does protect accounts that have never signed. It is not a 3 because almost every account holding value, including the masternodes, has signed and so revealed its key. Source: https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/blob/main/crypto/crypto.go ### 6. Verification: 2/10 Anchor band 0 to 2: No post-quantum component exists, or the claims rest on marketing. No post-quantum component protects XDC. The Falcon proof of concept is open source but sits on an unmerged branch with compiled binaries committed alongside the C source, runs on no persistent network and has had no outside review. The quantum-safe marketing on xdc.network is XDC Innovation Labs' and not the chain's, and the lab's FAQ says the work is not a claim that XDC is already quantum-proof. Placement in the band: The top of the band rather than a 0 or a 1: no post-quantum component protects funds, but the profile does not treat the lab as XDC's authority for the tier, so its quantum-safe marketing is not counted as XDC's own claim either, and the chain's position does not rest on marketing. Source: https://xdc.network/quantum-faq ## Nearest chains in the ranking The chains XDC sits among, out of 80 rated. The last column is the gap in Hardy points from XDC. | Rank | Chain | Tier | Hardy | vs XDC | |---:|---|---|---:|---:| | 26 | [Cosmos Hub](https://hardyindex.com/chains/cosmos-hub) | 4: Debating | 23.5 | +3.5 | | 27 | [Kaspa](https://hardyindex.com/chains/kaspa) | 4: Debating | 20.5 | +0.5 | | 28 | [BNB Chain](https://hardyindex.com/chains/bnb-chain) | 4: Debating | 20.0 | level | | 29 | [Monad](https://hardyindex.com/chains/monad) | 4: Debating | 20.0 | level | | 30 | **XDC Network** | 4: Debating | 20.0 | this chain | | 31 | [Bittensor](https://hardyindex.com/chains/bittensor) | 4: Debating | 19.0 | -1.0 | | 32 | [Monero](https://hardyindex.com/chains/monero) | 4: Debating | 17.5 | -2.5 | | 33 | [Neo](https://hardyindex.com/chains/neo) | 4: Debating | 17.0 | -3.0 | | 34 | [Dash](https://hardyindex.com/chains/dash) | 5: Exposed | 16.5 | -3.5 | ## Signature scheme - **On mainnet today:** ECDSA on secp256k1 for accounts and for XDPoS 2.0 masternode block and vote signatures - **Post-quantum scheme:** Falcon tested for consensus signatures on an unmerged proof-of-concept branch; a third-party lab roadmap adds ML-DSA wallets through account abstraction - **NIST standard:** FN-DSA (Falcon), FIPS 206 in draft; FIPS 204 (ML-DSA) named in the lab roadmap and nowhere else - **Readiness tier:** Tier 4: Debating. Post-quantum work on the chain’s own signatures is documented by people with authority over it, in a formal improvement proposal or a public research programme, but no scheme is agreed and no timeline is published. ## Cryptography in use - **Account signatures:** [ECDSA on secp256k1](https://hardyindex.com/algorithms/ecdsa-secp256k1.md). Mainnet, default. Source (source code or release): https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/blob/main/crypto/crypto.go - **Validator consensus:** [ECDSA on secp256k1](https://hardyindex.com/algorithms/ecdsa-secp256k1.md). Mainnet, mandatory. XDPoS 2.0 block headers, votes and timeouts. Source (source code or release): https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/blob/main/consensus/XDPoS/engines/engine_v2/utils.go - **Validator consensus:** [FN-DSA](https://hardyindex.com/algorithms/fn-dsa.md). Specified, not deployed. Proof of concept on an unmerged branch, last committed 9 August 2025. Source (source code or release): https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/tree/poc_falcon - **Account signatures:** [ML-DSA](https://hardyindex.com/algorithms/ml-dsa.md). Proposed. Proposed by XDC Innovation Labs, not by an XDC governing body, through account abstraction. Source (statement or write-up): https://xdc.network/quantum-roadmap A role not listed here is not evidenced either way. See https://hardyindex.com/algorithms.md. ## Roadmap - **June to August 2025** (shipped): A core XDPoSChain contributor implements Falcon signing and verification for XDPoS 2.0 blocks, votes, quorum certificates and timeouts on the poc_falcon branch, with benchmarks. The branch is not merged. Source: https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/tree/poc_falcon - **16 August 2025** (shipped): A three-layer post-quantum migration for consensus, transactions and applications is written up on the XDC developer forum, reporting block signatures growing from 65 to 652 bytes under Falcon and calling the choice of algorithm premature. Source: https://www.xdc.dev/gary/securing-xdc-with-post-quantum-signatures-2j86 - **March 2026** (shipped): XDC Innovation Labs launches its post-quantum initiative and publishes a four-phase roadmap to 2030. The roadmap lists an XIP-PQ-001 community vote to ratify it and marks that item as done, but we found no published text or result for the vote. Source: https://xdc.network/quantum-roadmap - **No date from an XDC governing body** (proposed): Falcon consensus signatures after a 12-month dual-signing period, then an 18-month notice before ECDSA consensus signatures are retired. The lab dates this to 2029 and 2030 on its roadmap and to 2030 and 2031 in its FAQ; neither date is the chain's. Source: https://xdc.network/quantum-roadmap ## If holders never migrate **No stated policy.** No XDC governing body has stated a policy for accounts that never move to post-quantum keys. XDC Innovation Labs' FAQ says ECDSA transactions keep working through its Phase 3 and that ECDSA is deprecated once more than 95 per cent of the network upgrades, without saying what happens to the rest. As of 22 October 2026. Source: https://xdc.network/quantum-faq ## Exposure XDC follows Ethereum's address model, with an xdc prefix in place of 0x. An address is derived from a Keccak-256 hash of the secp256k1 public key, so an account that has never signed keeps its key private, but every signature lets anyone recover the key. Accounts in use, and the masternodes that sign every block, have therefore published their keys, and those balances could be recorded now for a future quantum attack. ## Frequently asked questions ### Is XDC Network quantum-safe? No, not today. XDC Network is an EVM chain, and both its accounts and the masternodes that sign its blocks use ECDSA on secp256k1, which a sufficiently large quantum computer breaks. Two pieces of post-quantum work exist. In mid-2025 a long-standing contributor to XDPoSChain, the XDC node software, built a proof of concept that signs and verifies XDPoS 2.0 blocks, votes and timeouts with Falcon, on a branch of the official repository that has not been merged. And XDC Innovation Labs, which describes itself as "one contributor within a broader ecosystem", publishes a four-phase roadmap running from 2026 to 2030 that ends with Falcon consensus signatures and an ECDSA sunset for consensus, with ML-DSA wallets through account abstraction along the way. We found no XDC improvement proposal, foundation statement or governance vote adopting that roadmap, so it is recorded here as research and not as the chain's plan. ### Is XDC Network quantum-safe? No. XDC accounts and the masternodes that sign its blocks use ECDSA on secp256k1, which a large enough quantum computer would break. Pages describing XDC as a quantum-safe chain refer to a roadmap; the node software has no post-quantum signature. ### Who publishes the XDC quantum roadmap? XDC Innovation Labs, at xdc.network. It describes itself as "one contributor within a broader ecosystem", and we found no XDC improvement proposal or XDC Foundation statement adopting the roadmap, which is why it is not scored as the chain's plan. ### Has XDC tested post-quantum signatures? Yes, as a proof of concept. A branch of the XDPoSChain repository signs and verifies blocks, votes and timeouts with Falcon, and the accompanying write-up reports signatures growing from 65 to 652 bytes. The branch has not been merged and runs on no network. ### Will XDC holders need new addresses? Not under either route described so far. The developer forum write-up maps existing addresses to post-quantum keys, and the lab roadmap uses account abstraction to change how a wallet signs without moving funds. Neither has been adopted or built. ## What this rating means if you hold XDC Plain-language guidance from the same publication, with no product recommendation attached. - [Is my crypto safe from quantum computers?](https://hardyindex.com/guides/is-my-crypto-safe-from-quantum-computers.md) - [How to protect your crypto from quantum computers](https://hardyindex.com/guides/how-to-protect-crypto-from-quantum-computers.md) - [All guides](https://hardyindex.com/guides.md) ## Sources 1. [XDPoSChain crypto/crypto.go](https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/blob/main/crypto/crypto.go): XinFinOrg (GitHub) (primary, checked 22 October 2026) 2. [XDPoS 2.0 engine utils.go](https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/blob/main/consensus/XDPoS/engines/engine_v2/utils.go): XinFinOrg (GitHub) (primary, checked 22 October 2026) 3. [XDPoSChain poc_falcon branch](https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/tree/poc_falcon): XinFinOrg (GitHub) (primary, checked 22 October 2026) 4. [Securing XDC with Post-Quantum Signatures](https://www.xdc.dev/gary/securing-xdc-with-post-quantum-signatures-2j86): XDC Developers Forum (secondary, checked 22 October 2026) 5. [Quantum-Safe Migration Roadmap](https://xdc.network/quantum-roadmap): XDC Innovation Labs (secondary, checked 22 October 2026) 6. [Post-Quantum FAQ](https://xdc.network/quantum-faq): XDC Innovation Labs (secondary, checked 22 October 2026) 7. [XDC Innovation Labs](https://xdc.network/): XDC Innovation Labs (secondary, checked 22 October 2026) 8. [About XDC Innovation Labs](https://xdc.network/about.html): XDC Innovation Labs (secondary, checked 22 October 2026) 9. [Team](https://xdc.network/team): XDC Innovation Labs (secondary, checked 22 October 2026) 10. [Post-Quantum Cryptography project](https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography): NIST (primary, checked 22 October 2026) ## How to cite this rating A rating is only true as of the day it was reviewed, so both forms carry the review date and the methodology version. If you are quoting the score, quote those too. The Hardy Index (2026). XDC Network: quantum readiness assessment. Hardy Score 20.0 of 100, Tier 4: Debating. Methodology v1.8. Last reviewed 22 October 2026; sources checked 13 November 2026. https://hardyindex.com/chains/xdc-network ```bibtex @misc{hardyindex_xdc_network_2026, author = {{The Hardy Index}}, title = {XDC Network: quantum readiness assessment}, year = {2026}, howpublished = {\url{https://hardyindex.com/chains/xdc-network}}, note = {Hardy Score 20.0 of 100, Tier 4: Debating. Methodology v1.8}, urldate = {2026-11-13} } ``` --- Methodology: https://hardyindex.com/methodology (v1.8). Cite as: The Hardy Index, "XDC Network", https://hardyindex.com/chains/xdc-network, as of 13 November 2026.