Methodology

The principle

Authority in a benchmark comes from showing the work, not from asserting the number. Three rules follow from that, and we hold to them throughout.

• Everything is sourced. Every dimension score carries a note and a link to a primary source: the chain's own documentation, a standards body, a public repository or a named research paper. Where we rely on a secondary source, it is labelled as one.
• Judgement calls are declared. Where a placement is contestable, the chain's profile says so in its own words and explains what a reader who weighs things differently would conclude instead.
• The score is arithmetic, not opinion. Given six dimension scores, the total is fixed. There is no adjustment, no override and no house view applied afterwards.

The five-tier readiness spine

Every chain sits in exactly one tier. The tier answers a single question: how far has this chain actually moved, as opposed to how far it intends to move?

1. Native Deployment score 10/10

   Post-quantum secure at mainnet today, with quantum-resistant signatures built in from genesis.

2. Shipping Deployment score 8/10

   Post-quantum signature features are live on mainnet and a migration for existing holders is underway.

3. Committed Deployment score 5/10

   A funded roadmap with public dates and active research exists, but no post-quantum signature is live on mainnet.

4. Debating Deployment score 2/10

   The threat is acknowledged and proposals exist, but there is no consensus and no published timeline.

5. Exposed Deployment score 1/10

   The signatures securing funds on mainnet today are quantum-vulnerable, and no public post-quantum plan, proposal or research programme could be found.

Tier 5: Exposed is a statement about the published record, not about competence or intent. It records two findings together: the signatures securing funds on mainnet today are quantum-vulnerable, and we found no post-quantum plan, proposal or research programme.

Unverified is a flag, not a rung

A chain that markets itself as quantum-safe but whose deployed scheme cannot be confirmed against a primary source is not given a rung on the strength of its own marketing. One of two things happens instead. Either the row is held back, which is the default and is what we do with the chains listed on the about page, or, where the live scheme is confirmably still vulnerable, the chain is placed on the rung the evidence supports and carries a visible "Claims unverified" flag on its profile.

This keeps the ladder a measure of readiness and stops marketing from buying a position on it. No chain in the current dataset carries the flag.

The six dimensions

Each dimension is scored 0 to 10, multiplied by its weight, and divided by ten. The six weights sum to 100, so a chain scoring 10 on every dimension lands on exactly 100.

The calculation

The Hardy Score is the weighted sum of the six dimension scores, expressed on a 0 to 100 scale and rounded to one decimal place.

Hardy = ( signature   × 30
      + deployment  × 25
      + nist        × 15
      + migration   × 15
      + exposure    × 10
      + verification × 5 ) / 10

each dimension scored 0 to 10, maximum 100.0

Why deployment is derived, not scored

The deployment dimension is not an independent judgement. It is the tier expressed as a number, using the fixed mapping in the spine above: Tier 1 scores 10, Tier 2 scores 8, Tier 3 scores 5, Tier 4 scores 2 and Tier 5 scores 1.

This is deliberate. If deployment were scored separately, a chain's tier and its score could drift apart and the rubric would have a place for a thumb to rest on the scale. Deriving it means the build fails if an editor sets a deployment score that contradicts the tier. The inconsistency cannot be published.

Tier 5 maps below Tier 4 on purpose. A chain that has published nothing at all on the threat has demonstrated less than a chain that openly acknowledges the problem and has proposals on the table, even where neither has a post-quantum signature running.

What the score does not measure

The Hardy Score is narrow by design, and reading it as anything broader will mislead you.

• It does not measure whether a chain is a good investment, and it is not investment advice.
• It does not measure liquidity, market capitalisation, adoption, developer activity or ecosystem size.
• It does not measure general security. A chain can score highly here and be weak against entirely conventional attacks.
• It does not predict when a cryptographically relevant quantum computer will exist. It measures preparedness for the possibility, not the probability of the event.

Update cadence and corrections

Every chain carries an "as of" date, and the index carries the most recent of them. Scores change when the underlying facts change, and every change is logged in the changelog with a reason and a source.

Phase 1 of this index is maintained editorially: a person reads the primary sources and writes the note. If you believe a score is wrong, the useful thing to send is the primary source that contradicts it, to index@hardyindex.com. Corrections are logged publicly, including the ones we get wrong.

Known limits of this rubric

Stating a rubric's weaknesses is part of publishing it. Three are worth knowing.

• Availability is not adoption. The signature dimension credits a post-quantum scheme that is live and usable on mainnet, even where very few accounts use it. A chain can score meaningfully on this dimension while almost all of its value remains classically protected.
• Exposure is scored on structure as much as on measurement. Only a few chains have published, independent measurements of exposed supply. For the rest we score the address model, which determines exposure but does not quantify it.
• Pre-mainnet chains distort the exposure dimension. A chain with no live network has no exposed supply, which is an absence of risk rather than an achievement. We score those cases at the neutral midpoint and say so, but the dimension still flatters them.