Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Hello welcome to Control Loop. what if BlackRock, JP Morgan, Circle, Fireblocks, Bitco, Ethereum, Solana, all are preparing for the wrong audit? The next crypto crisis may not start with a hack, it may start with a stable coin collapse, it may start with exchange failure, it may start with a CBOM and a cryptographic bill of a machine readable inventory that asks a brutal question. What signs the assets, not a pitch deck, not a custody dashboard, not a roadmap, the actual cryptography. Show me every algorithm that secures custody movement, stable coin issuance, tokenized funds, transfers, collateral, and know, privacy workflows and settlement finality. This happened on June twenty second, twenty twenty six. What I'm talking about is the executive order 14412. The name of the order is securing the nations against advanced cryptographic attacks. This has started the US federal post quantum clock. The risk is no longer waiting for the quantum computer. The risk is entering a procurement, compliance, audit, vendor review, and a board oversight now. So I am Parth, the co-founder of Eterna X. With me, there is Mansi, our legal and regulatory expert. The entire episode comes down to what ⁓ one question. What signs the asset and why is this question relevant? President Donald J. Trump ha has said in the executive order, collecting United States information now and decrypting it later is a big problem. And the next crypto crisis may not start with a hack, it may start with a CBOM audit. So we'll move over to Mancy, our legal expert. So Mancy, from a reg legal and statutory perspective, is Executive Order 14412 just another federal technology order.
Mansi: ⁓ It is actually a legal trigger for cryptographic accountability. directly the executive order one four four one two applies to federal systems and covered contractors, ⁓ legally its importance is broader because it creates ⁓ responsibilities, standards, and procurement consequences. that is what boards and general counsels care about. ⁓ The actually requires ⁓ federal towards NIST-approved ⁓ post-quantum ⁓ It a Agency level ownership, federal migration deadlines, contractor pressure, and CBOM guidance. For digital assets, the most important part is digital signatures. Crypto is authorization, custody transfer is authorization, stablecoin minting is authorization, tokenized fund transfer is authorization, collateral release is authorization, settlement finality is also authorization. So the legal question is not whether the order names crypto, the legal question. The legal question is whether crypto infrastructure depends on cryptography, that federal systems, contractors, regulated institutions and auditors will now be forced to inventory, justify and migrate. The answer to that is yes. President Donald J. Trump in his Executive Order 14412 ⁓ said strengthen cryptographic protections. Executive Order 14412 ⁓ turns quantum ⁓ from technical roadmap into a legal ac legal accountability clock.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: this is ⁓ this is great, Mansi. I mean what what you have said. But there is certain terms ⁓ here that that, you know, c caught my attention. What is a CBOM? and why is it dangerous for the institutional crypto right now? ⁓ could you explain more on this, Mansi? What is the legal requirements of CBOM?
Mansi: Yeah, that is actually a very pertinent question. So a CBOM is a cryptographic bill of materials. Legally, think of it as evidence. It is an inventory of algorithms, keys, certificates, protocols, libraries, signing methods, and dependencies. ⁓ the executive order directs CISA and NIST to define minimum CBOM elements within 270 days. ⁓ purpose is automated assessment of cryptographic assets. ⁓ That word matters actually automated. company cannot simply say we are quantum ready. ⁓ CBOM asks what is deployed already. ⁓ For systems, the question is brutal. What signs transaction? If the answer ECDSA or EDDSA, ⁓ the system has post-quantum migration gap. Ethereum, Solana, Canton, all of these ⁓ their ECDSA signing configuration. a normal CBOM, those are inventory items. In a CBOM review, they become migration Ethereum, Solana, Canton ⁓ do not fail they are bad networks. ⁓ They would fail because a post-quantum screen, ⁓ because a production layer is classical. A roadmap does not pass a CBOM, a system actually does. Like ⁓ President Trump has already said, cryptographic bill of materials, the CBOM does not ask which chain is popular, it asks which cryptography signs the asset.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Got it. I mean this is ⁓ this is ⁓ this lays out basically the relevance of the, you know, ⁓ cryptographic bill of materials and basically what you're saying is that this thing has to happen ⁓ you know, and it's it's more of an automated task. So there is no no moving around this. Either you pass or fail in this. So there's not much that you can do about it and institutions have to really get start getting worried. know, ⁓ so now the next question ⁓ to to you, Mansi, I have is How does ⁓ this federal order reaches any private institutions or private crypto company companies, custodians, tobacco companies, issuers or tokenization platform? Because this is a very blatant question that is asked to me, is that, you know, it is a federal order. It is a it is for the federal agencies. why would ⁓ anybody, any any private company get covered under this? So can you explain me on that, Mansi?
Mansi: that happens through the compliance cascade. So federal ⁓ Systems need ⁓ PQC, federal contractors need PQC. Contractors will ask vendors for evidence, banks ask its custodians for evidence. Custodians will in turn ask chains, wallets, MPC providers, and settlement providers for evidence. asset managers will ask tokenization platforms for evidence, auditors will ask everyone for evidence, ⁓ that is how legal pressure moves through the market. a company may not be directly named ⁓ in the executive order. But it can still be reached contractually, commercially, operationally, and reputationally. major bank, asset manager, custodian, ⁓ a payment network will basically ask: can this infrastructure survive ⁓ risk review, audit, procurement, and board oversight? ⁓ a risk is named, dated, and standardized and auditable, it becomes difficult for a board to treat it as theoretical. So what President Trump has said in the executive order is critical infrastructure owners and operators. pressure chain is simple government bank, bank to custodian, custodian to chain.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Got it. So basically it's not in you you cannot just say that, you know, we are just not covered. It is just for the federal agencies and there is a chain of command there which, you know, basically you listed out the government to bank, bank to custodian, custodian to chain, because obviously at the end of the days these assets are born on any chain and hence the the guarantees of, you know, these cryptographic proofs comes from the chain and then, you know, ⁓ move upwards. So this is great, Mansi. And can you give me two examples of how a non federal company gets pulled into this?
Mansi: Yes. so for example, a crypto custodian bank a crypto custodian which is serving a bank. Think Fireblocks, BidGo, Anchorage Digital, Coinbase Prime, Copper, Zodiac Custody, Taurus, or Fortify serving JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BNY, Citi, State Street, Standard Chartered, or Deutsche Bank. The bank may not be a federal agency, but it is regulated, audit-sensitive, and connected to federal clients or market infrastructure. ⁓ That can ask what signs your asset movement? Do you rely on ECDSA or EDDSA? Do you have CBOM? What is your PQC migration plan? If the custodian signs on Ethereum, Solana or Canton and the CBOM shows ECDSA or ED two five five one nine example. ⁓ A tokenized fund or stablecoin issuer, think BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Wisdom Tree, Securitize, Circle, Pax, PayPal, MasterCard, JP Morgan, or City. If their assets touch regulated clients, payment rails, federal contractors, or institutional counterparties, clients will ask whether minting, burning, transfers, blacklisting, collateral movement, and settlement are cryptographically defensible. may ⁓ Be named by the order, but your client's audit can still reach you. So to quote Hester Pierce, ⁓ former SEC commissioner, tokenized securities are still securities. You may not be named by the order, but your client's audit can still reach you.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: So go ahead, Mansi I think what you're saying here is very clear is that I mean this is, you know, anybody is there there are a lot of ⁓ individuals who are interacting and with federal agencies and you know some so SECs, some individuals are like they have OCC charters as well, you know, stablecoin issuers and OCC ⁓ is basically a federal agency. So the situation can be that because there there is a federal agency that is required to commit to this ⁓ thing. They will require that the they will ask the charter holders, okay, give me your audit, essentially. And then the charter holders will will say that, okay, I don't have it, but I'll ask my custodians, I will ask my chain. ⁓ that's that's the cascading effect that you are talking about. So they be essentially a lot of these names which you listed would essentially be covered in this. One last question is this is with you is that can institutions still say that they are waiting for the post quantum ⁓ signatures or standards to mature?
Mansi: No, for the core standards. NIST has already finalized the first three post-quantum cryptography standards ⁓ ⁓ in August 2024. FIPS 203 is MLKEM for key establishment. ⁓ FIPS and 205 are for digital signature ⁓ and DSA based on Sphincs, also put digital signatures. ⁓ So for that changes the legal posture quite a bit. is no longer a neutral position. ⁓ digital assets, signatures are the key issue. ⁓ signs custody movement, what signs token issuance, collateral release and settlement instructions? ⁓ the answer is classical ECDSA or EDDSA, ⁓ institution has a migration problem. Dustin Moody from NIS NIST has already said that full integration will take time. So in summation the standards are not coming. The first standards are already here.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Got it. I think I think this is this is very clear. ⁓ this is very clear ⁓ that th there is no point of waiting on the standards that you you already have established that FIPS two zero five, FIPS two zero four, that is delethium and in Sphincs is already out there, which was published in twenty twenty four. there's already standards which people should start integrating and they should not be, you know, looking out for much more ⁓ you know, confirmations from the NIST. ⁓ Anyways, these standards are published, so there is no ⁓ there's no no there's no delay in terms of even the NIST that you can say that NIST has not approved any standards. These standards are there, you you just have to go there and start applying them and get a passing ⁓ CBOM audit. So ⁓ this is cool, Mansi. I think I think now you have certain questions to me, you know, regarding the business side of things ⁓ of you know what all this executive order, how it's going to impact the institutions.
Mansi: Alright, let's jump in. So Parth, my first question to you on the business side of things is ⁓ are the key dates that the institutions need to keep in mind when it comes to the CBOM?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: So these are the five dates, windows that the institutions should track, Mansi. Very clear. First is June 22, 2026. That is the trigger date, and that is when the executive order of 144.12 is started the federal post quantum clock. The second is very clear, it is first 90 to 180 days from this day. is when the federal guidance and agency planning and contractor rule momentum will begin to form. The third is approximately March 2027. ⁓ That is the CBOM window. The CISA and NIST are expected to define the minimum CBOM elements ⁓ within days of the order, and that is, you know, approximately coming out to be March 2027. ⁓ So is the first major exposure ⁓ point for private institutions because that why when they will understand that okay, these things are covered and I have to get these things audited, and my audit will either fail or pass. Now the fourth date is very critical, Mansi. This is December 31st, 2030. Federal high value systems must migrate key establishments to PQC and the contractor pressure becomes much more concrete. The fifth is December 31st, 2031. That is where federal high value systems must digital signatures to PQC. That means 2031 is the last date. Where the high value systems should have migrated completely 100% without any lapse to the post-quantum cryptography. For crypto, 2031 is the most important date because digital assets move through signatures. And the institutional reality is very simple: 2026 creates the clock, 2027 creates the audit mechanism, 2030 creates the procurement pressure, 2031st creates the signature deadline. The firm that wait until 2030 will be too late. so just to sum it up, 2027 is the CBOM year and 2031st is the signature year.
Mansi: Right, so we don't have as long as we'd like to have. that is actually ⁓ very informative part and ⁓ move on to the next question. which is basically what does this actually mean for the board, ⁓ general counsels like me and ⁓ regulated
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Mm-hmm, it means that post-quantum risk is now a legal shape, has legal shape. And and you can basically can the legal ⁓ can read it, legal eyes can shape it, it has dates, it has standards, legal loves those things, ⁓ has named federal agencies, it has procurement consequences, it has audit evidence, and that changes the board oversight. A board now can be asked, did ⁓ know your infrastructure dependent on ECDSA or or you know ED ⁓ EDDSA? Did you ask vendors for a CBOM? Did you review the chain level signing dependency? Did you assess Ethereum Solana Canton, Bitcoin or Stellar Exposure? ⁓ you create a migration plan before procurement pressure arrived? Legal teams do not need to prove that a quantum computer break is coming tomorrow. They need to prove the institution acted reasonably ⁓ the risk became named, dated, standardized. So that already has happened with this order mancy. So for BlackRock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, State Street, City, BNY, DTCC, Broad Ridge, MasterCard, Circle, Paxos, Fireblocks, BitGo, Coin Prime, Copper, Zodiac Custody, Securitize, this is not a panic. It is a diligence. So once the risk has been named, it has been dated, it is now auditable. Weaver waiting becomes a very weak defense for any board of these institutions.
Mansi: Mm-hmm. on. many custodians will say we use MPC, so we are safe. ⁓ Is a correct assumption?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: No, definitely not, man. See MPC is important, but it is not make the underlying blockchain signature post quantum safe. MPC solves the key management. It can split the signing authority, it can prove policy controls, it can reduce the single key compromise. But if the final on-chain transaction is still verified through ECDSA, the settlement layer still remains classical. So that is the hard truth. If Fireblock, ⁓ Fireblock and BitGo Anchorage Copper and Coin Pri Coinbase Prime, Taurus, Zodia, Fortify. They sign the transaction on Ethereum Solana, Canton, Bitcoin, or Stellar. The question is not whether the custody workflow is sophisticated. The question is whether the final settlement is post-quantum defensible. Ethereum means ECDSA exposure. Solana means ECDSA exposure. Canton means ECDSA exposure. So MPC can split the key. It cannot make Ethereum Solana Canton post quantum. If you have to, you know, you have to go post quantum safe, then you have to. Connect with it at Eterna X. You can go, you can have MPC post quantum safe. at Eterna X, you can have HSM, custody, post quantum safe, ⁓ with Eterna X. So ⁓ one line, you know, ⁓ MPC basically secures the workflow. It does not automatically secure the settlement primitive. ⁓ the underlying ⁓ thing would be wrong that you know we custody and custody ⁓ is is ⁓ is is equally unsafe in the post quantum world.
Mansi: No, that is a very insight into how actually make custodies safe, especially when institutions are moving into crypto very quickly. that is actually ⁓ very eye-opening ⁓ for our I'm sure. moving on to next question, part. ⁓ why do you think stable coins, tokenized funds, RWAs, and collateral ⁓ are the highest categories ⁓ when it comes Post quantum
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: yeah, ⁓ definitely, Mansi. I think this is very ⁓ this is very, very critical because when it comes down to these assets, these ⁓ this is one point which is r ignored a lot of times. These are long duration financial claims. It's not a five year, it is not a six year, seven year, it is a thirty year, fifty year, hundred years claims. And you know, there a lot of ⁓ you know public companies which are still, you know, listed. You know, 60 years back and they're still running, their shares are being traded and they grow over the period. So it's not that these shares get, you know, lost. I mean, these are long duration financial claims. A stable coin is a payment infrastructure, a tokenized treasury is a financial claim, a tokenized fund share is a regulated ownership, a collateral token is a balance sheet infrastructure, a settlement instruction is a market plumbing. So these assets must survive audit ⁓ Mansi, they should survive custody. They should survive redemption, reporting, compliance, and legal review for years. That makes the signing layer very strategic. A stable coin issued on Ethereum, it inherits ⁓ you know the dependency on ECDSA. A tokenized play payment flow on Solana that inherits again the ECDSA dependency. The institutional flow on Canton again inherits the same problems of ECDSA. So the issue is not only the issuer, custodian, administrator, it is the full cryptographic path from the authorization to the settlement. So for Circle, Paxos, PayPal, JP Morgan, City, MasterCard, BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Wisdom Tees, Strait Street, Securities, Hamilton Lane, KKR, Apollo, the question is very simple. Can the asset survive post quantum audit or not? Postquantum is not only security, it is a compliance access and distribution system. Larry Fink from BlackRock has already said that every stock, every bond, every fund. Can be tokenized and will be tokenized. The asset is the is only as PQ ready as the signing layer that moves it. This is the important point here, one see. So I mean ⁓ this is all this is all very much tied to the base layer. If the base is not post quantum safe, then it's it's very difficult.
Mansi: Right. that is clear that every asset ⁓ its own ⁓ quantum migration debt. ⁓ unless that is resolved, the asset ⁓ wouldn't be safe. that is very important thing, I for issuers ⁓ and the entire Street to understand as the entire Wall Street moves on chain. ⁓ moving on to the next question part. Why do you why do E C D S A and E D D S A become migration debt? Can you elaborate a little bit more on that for our listeners?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Yeah, definitely, Mansi I think because because see the institutional asset they live longer than crypto narratives that I have already told you. The customer wallet can migrate quickly. The meme token can disappear. But tokenized funds, stablecoin reserve flow, rails, settlement ledger, custody stack, they cannot simply say that we will move later. The problem is migration requires wallet updates, account migration, custody changes, smart contract compatibility, ⁓ attestation, investor communication, legal review, and audit evidence. Sometimes migration is not clean because the contract is immutable. So the chain upgrade is uncertain or institutional dependencies are already live. So is why you know we can say that you know ⁓ the ECDSA migration is not just algorithms, they become migration debt. Ethereum is not just liquidity, it is a migration debt. Solana is again, you know, not just throughput but a migration debt. And Canton again, not just institu institutional workflow, it is basically a migration debt unless the production signing layer becomes PQ native. That is what Eterna X says already, and that is what we have been stressing upon for the institutions in whom we are discussing with that PQ native issuance takes away all these problems. There are a lot of problems with the migrations with all these chains are facing, and we will publish that report pretty soon. That ⁓ this is ⁓ very critical. They should adopt PQ native, basically saying that today when they issue, they issue on a chain which is PQ native day one, so that they do not have any migration challenges or any migration problem. And a CBOM audit will be a pass for them on EternX. So this will make ⁓ this audit will and they will pass the CBOM audit, and this can be used as a distribution edge as well. as ⁓ you know ⁓ with with this thing. So Ethereum, Solana, and Canton are not only networks in a PQ review, they are cryptographic dependencies, which I know there is a lot of ⁓ you know that there is a lot of lack of education on these topics, but we are bringing a very well-rounded report ⁓ to cover the challenges of these three. And mind ⁓ you know, Mancy, we are we are stressing on this point again. This report ⁓ very critical for the readers. Because who say or who assume that you know just plain migration will solve everything because a lot of things are not also in the hands of the chain itself. So there are a lot of ⁓ problems which are outside that, which the chain may not solve also for the people. So there are a lot of ⁓ immutable contracts which are used by DeFi which just cannot be changed. So they have to suffer a lot of losses. Those things are very real threats and challenges. So yeah, we'll publish that report pretty soon, Mancy, and and ⁓ our listeners and yourself and and and into the community they will have it for review.
Mansi: Yeah, no, that sounds like a very report and we look forward to ⁓ looking into it and understanding post threat ⁓ map all us. now coming to Eterna can you tell me a little bit more about why Eterna X focuses on ⁓ Sphincs Plus or SLH DSA?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Yeah, definitely, Mansi This is this is one of the basic, very basic questions that we get asked a lot, ⁓ you know, that you know, there are three schemes. One is Falcon, Delithium, and Sphincs. which is ⁓ w why do we go for Sphincs and why do we suggest the institutions to go with Sphincs? So institutional finance should be optimized for the lowest cryptographic recret. Full stop. That is the line. The ⁓ Sphincs or the MLDSA, which is Dilithium, is finalized and will likely become a major enterprise default. Right. Falcon may become attractive where where compact signature matter ⁓ once its path has been completed. But with Sphincs and SLHDSA or SLHDSA, the different has a different institutional value proposition. And that value proposition, Maansi, is It is hash-based. For long-lived ownership, custody authorization, stablecoin issuance, tokenized fund transfer, and settlement finality. The question is not which signature is the smallest. The question is which foundation reduces the chance of second migration. So what I am trying to say here is that you are migrating one to once today to a PQ post-quantum migration scheme. The chances of future migration you have to reduce. Because you don't want this problem, you know, again and again in your life. So Sphincs has larger signatures, but it solves this problem. You will never it is it is one of the most oldest it is the most battle-tested schemes, it has survived you know attacks. There have been no ⁓ noted attacks on Sphincs, ⁓ and the the the the absolute genius of it goes to the hash-based structure. So this is real. But that is why the architecture also matters. Legacy chains were not designed around post-quantum signatures. Eterna X, on the other hand, is designed around Sphincs from day one. So the goal is approved scheme security in the background. You get a clean passing CBOM evidence audit compliance and market speed settlement in the product. So we are at Eterna X, not we are not compromising at the speed, Mancy. We are providing you 50k to 200k TPS ⁓ Sphincs, which is the most heaviest. Why are we able to give it? Because we have designed the chain around this. And and the rest of the chains are not ⁓ around it. So for long-lived financial assets, the is that is optimized for lowest cryptographic ⁓ regret.
Mansi: I think that's very quotable for myself and I'm sure the viewers as well. the lowest cryptographic regret. coming the architecture now, Barth, ⁓ what does a post quantum native look like ⁓ at infrastructure level?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: So, yeah, Mansi, so post-quantum native means that chain is designed for the post-quantum signatures from the inception. Retrofitting PQ signatures into existing chain is not a small upgrade, right? That we have decided and we have communicated as well. it is a structural redesign. So according Eterna X, you know, ⁓ the ⁓ architecture analysis, we we have, you know, we we have done this ⁓ analysis about different chains. Ethereum loses approximately 84% of the TPS The PQ signature. Solana has publicly reported 90% Canton loses 88% of the TPS. Stellar loses 90% of the TPS. So this is a structural problem for institutional settlement. Eterna X was designed from day one with the Sphincs, which the most conservative PQ scheme under ⁓ NIST 205. And this the transaction signing primitive. This is not a future upgrade. It is not a roadmap. It is the base layer. We start with this at eternax. So according you know, our basically our features are, you know, we have 50k to 200k TPS, we 20 to 50 milliseconds of finality, we have 400 to 500 milliseconds of hard finality, and we face approximately just 2% of TPS loss under PQ signatures as compared to 80% or 90% Ethereum Solana or Stellar or Canton. So you run a CBOM on Ethereum. It returns fail. It says you use E C DSA, hence you fail. You run CBOM on Solana, it says fail. Run CBOM on Canton, it says fail. You run CBOM Eterna X, it returns delete it returns ⁓ SLHDSA under FIPS 205. A clean conservative pass. So that is what a clean CBOM looks like. And ⁓ you know Ethereum E C DSA, Solana again, you know, same. ⁓ it ⁓ eternal X returns ⁓ SLH DSA under FIPS two zero five.
Mansi: Yeah, I think that loss of ⁓ percent versus two percent is pretty stark and ⁓ is something that ⁓ institutions should consider. that is a very interesting observation from ⁓ this that X has ⁓ conducted. moving on, ⁓ what ⁓ is Eterna answer ⁓ one clean business if you had to ⁓ put it like ⁓
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: So great question, Mansi. So Eternal X is a post quantum native infrastructure for the, you know, institutional digital assets. The market does not need another chain that promises, you know, migrate later. And that's that's what we you know we we never say we are PQ native, you come on us and you become you know, post quantum day one. ⁓ The needs infrastructure that is designed for post quantum compliance world from day one inception, and that means That Sphincs and SLH Sphincs or SLHDSA based security under FIPS 205 is one. PQ safe custody workflows is day one. Auditable privacy is day one. Clean CBOM readiness day one. Market speed settlement day one. Stablecoin tokenized fund RWA collateral movement institutional settlement. Institutions do not need to buy narratives. They buy defensibility. Can this pass the audit? Can this satisfy procurement? Can this support regulated assets? Can this survive board review? Can this reduce migration debt? The first institution to become you know PQ native will market it as an eligibility. Eligible for banks, eligible for federal agency, federal agency ⁓ adjacent procurement, ⁓ eligible for tokenized collateral, eligible for long duration institutional assets, ⁓ this is the Eterna X-wedge. So if you come with us and join with us like the many institutions that are discussing with us and joining us on this PQ native journey. If institution comes to us, ⁓ they use post quantum native ⁓ not as a strategic advantage, also ⁓ as an regulatory because now the audit requirement is clean for them. It is already, you know, there will be plusing the CBOM audit With flying colors while their competitors will be lagging behind. So this is the narrative that we we have. And PQ native is not, you know, just not a security now, it is an institutional eligibility, I would say. JP Jamie Diamond from JP Morgan Chase has already said that a whole new set of competitors are coming and emerging in the blockchain space ⁓ around tokenization and everything. So I mean this is a good time for everybody to, you know, gain the edge very early on. And ⁓ we can start. So I'll quickly recap, Mansi, what we have you know ⁓ said. There is a lot of things beautiful ⁓ the lot of good things that have been you know spoken about in this ⁓ particular know the podcast, and I would like to summarize those for our listeners ⁓ the end who who want you know clear summary of what has happened. So the final takeaway for the institutional crypto, what is it from this? Is takeaway is very simple. Crypto is preparing for a wrong audit. The market is watching reserves, custody controls, and regulation. But the next institutional capital the question is very basic. ⁓ signs the asset? Executive order has 14412 creates that clock. ⁓ CBOM creates the audit mechanism. The NIST created the approval migration path already. ECDSA and EDDC DSA create the exposure. Ethereum, Solana, Canton do not fail because they are bad networks. they fail because the post-quantum readiness is screen inside the CBOM because their production ⁓ signing layer is classical. So the MPC does not remove that exposure if the final settlement still depends on classical signature. And ⁓ we observed that retrofitting you know PQ signatures into existing chains creates 84% to 90% of the capacity loss. Eterna X is designed Sphincs SLHDSA that is 205 from day one. ⁓ one of the NIST approved schemes with approximately 2% TPS loss under the PQ native architecture. For institutional digital asset, the question has is no longer on which chain ⁓ has the liquidity today. The question is which infrastructure can defend the asset ownership, the custody authorization, stablecoin issuance, tokenized fund transfer, collateral release, the privacy workflows, settlement finality in a post-quantum compliance world. So this is Eternaek's thesis. The next crypto crisis may not start with a hack, it may start with a CBOM audit. And market will ask one question what signs the assets? And that is the last question that I'll you know leave ⁓ the team and and you know the D the listeners with. ⁓ I will ⁓ will post the blog blog as well that we have written. It is a very clear blog on on this executive order. that will be provided in the in the description box and Thank you, Mancy, once again, you know, for taking out the time. ⁓ the Mancy is is the legal and the regulatory genius that we have with ⁓ with us. And she has been on on ⁓ with us on the Eternalized journey, you know, guiding us on the legal and regulatory developments. This was one of the biggest ⁓ legal and regulatory ⁓ developments. And and thank you, Mansi, for providing your wonderful thoughts here. And ⁓ to our listeners, ⁓ you know, we would request you to keep ⁓ keep listening to us and subscribe us. And ⁓ we keep on posting the interesting developments in the post quantum space. So thank you. Thanks a lot. Bye bye.
Mansi: ⁓ It is actually a legal trigger for cryptographic accountability. directly the executive order one four four one two applies to federal systems and covered contractors, ⁓ legally its importance is broader because it creates ⁓ responsibilities, standards, and procurement consequences. that is what boards and general counsels care about. ⁓ The actually requires ⁓ federal towards NIST-approved ⁓ post-quantum ⁓ It a Agency level ownership, federal migration deadlines, contractor pressure, and CBOM guidance. For digital assets, the most important part is digital signatures. Crypto is authorization, custody transfer is authorization, stablecoin minting is authorization, tokenized fund transfer is authorization, collateral release is authorization, settlement finality is also authorization. So the legal question is not whether the order names crypto, the legal question. The legal question is whether crypto infrastructure depends on cryptography, that federal systems, contractors, regulated institutions and auditors will now be forced to inventory, justify and migrate. The answer to that is yes. President Donald J. Trump in his Executive Order 14412 ⁓ said strengthen cryptographic protections. Executive Order 14412 ⁓ turns quantum ⁓ from technical roadmap into a legal ac legal accountability clock.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: this is ⁓ this is great, Mansi. I mean what what you have said. But there is certain terms ⁓ here that that, you know, c caught my attention. What is a CBOM? and why is it dangerous for the institutional crypto right now? ⁓ could you explain more on this, Mansi? What is the legal requirements of CBOM?
Mansi: Yeah, that is actually a very pertinent question. So a CBOM is a cryptographic bill of materials. Legally, think of it as evidence. It is an inventory of algorithms, keys, certificates, protocols, libraries, signing methods, and dependencies. ⁓ the executive order directs CISA and NIST to define minimum CBOM elements within 270 days. ⁓ purpose is automated assessment of cryptographic assets. ⁓ That word matters actually automated. company cannot simply say we are quantum ready. ⁓ CBOM asks what is deployed already. ⁓ For systems, the question is brutal. What signs transaction? If the answer ECDSA or EDDSA, ⁓ the system has post-quantum migration gap. Ethereum, Solana, Canton, all of these ⁓ their ECDSA signing configuration. a normal CBOM, those are inventory items. In a CBOM review, they become migration Ethereum, Solana, Canton ⁓ do not fail they are bad networks. ⁓ They would fail because a post-quantum screen, ⁓ because a production layer is classical. A roadmap does not pass a CBOM, a system actually does. Like ⁓ President Trump has already said, cryptographic bill of materials, the CBOM does not ask which chain is popular, it asks which cryptography signs the asset.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Got it. I mean this is ⁓ this is ⁓ this lays out basically the relevance of the, you know, ⁓ cryptographic bill of materials and basically what you're saying is that this thing has to happen ⁓ you know, and it's it's more of an automated task. So there is no no moving around this. Either you pass or fail in this. So there's not much that you can do about it and institutions have to really get start getting worried. know, ⁓ so now the next question ⁓ to to you, Mansi, I have is How does ⁓ this federal order reaches any private institutions or private crypto company companies, custodians, tobacco companies, issuers or tokenization platform? Because this is a very blatant question that is asked to me, is that, you know, it is a federal order. It is a it is for the federal agencies. why would ⁓ anybody, any any private company get covered under this? So can you explain me on that, Mansi?
Mansi: that happens through the compliance cascade. So federal ⁓ Systems need ⁓ PQC, federal contractors need PQC. Contractors will ask vendors for evidence, banks ask its custodians for evidence. Custodians will in turn ask chains, wallets, MPC providers, and settlement providers for evidence. asset managers will ask tokenization platforms for evidence, auditors will ask everyone for evidence, ⁓ that is how legal pressure moves through the market. a company may not be directly named ⁓ in the executive order. But it can still be reached contractually, commercially, operationally, and reputationally. major bank, asset manager, custodian, ⁓ a payment network will basically ask: can this infrastructure survive ⁓ risk review, audit, procurement, and board oversight? ⁓ a risk is named, dated, and standardized and auditable, it becomes difficult for a board to treat it as theoretical. So what President Trump has said in the executive order is critical infrastructure owners and operators. pressure chain is simple government bank, bank to custodian, custodian to chain.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Got it. So basically it's not in you you cannot just say that, you know, we are just not covered. It is just for the federal agencies and there is a chain of command there which, you know, basically you listed out the government to bank, bank to custodian, custodian to chain, because obviously at the end of the days these assets are born on any chain and hence the the guarantees of, you know, these cryptographic proofs comes from the chain and then, you know, ⁓ move upwards. So this is great, Mansi. And can you give me two examples of how a non federal company gets pulled into this?
Mansi: Yes. so for example, a crypto custodian bank a crypto custodian which is serving a bank. Think Fireblocks, BidGo, Anchorage Digital, Coinbase Prime, Copper, Zodiac Custody, Taurus, or Fortify serving JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BNY, Citi, State Street, Standard Chartered, or Deutsche Bank. The bank may not be a federal agency, but it is regulated, audit-sensitive, and connected to federal clients or market infrastructure. ⁓ That can ask what signs your asset movement? Do you rely on ECDSA or EDDSA? Do you have CBOM? What is your PQC migration plan? If the custodian signs on Ethereum, Solana or Canton and the CBOM shows ECDSA or ED two five five one nine example. ⁓ A tokenized fund or stablecoin issuer, think BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Wisdom Tree, Securitize, Circle, Pax, PayPal, MasterCard, JP Morgan, or City. If their assets touch regulated clients, payment rails, federal contractors, or institutional counterparties, clients will ask whether minting, burning, transfers, blacklisting, collateral movement, and settlement are cryptographically defensible. may ⁓ Be named by the order, but your client's audit can still reach you. So to quote Hester Pierce, ⁓ former SEC commissioner, tokenized securities are still securities. You may not be named by the order, but your client's audit can still reach you.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: So go ahead, Mansi I think what you're saying here is very clear is that I mean this is, you know, anybody is there there are a lot of ⁓ individuals who are interacting and with federal agencies and you know some so SECs, some individuals are like they have OCC charters as well, you know, stablecoin issuers and OCC ⁓ is basically a federal agency. So the situation can be that because there there is a federal agency that is required to commit to this ⁓ thing. They will require that the they will ask the charter holders, okay, give me your audit, essentially. And then the charter holders will will say that, okay, I don't have it, but I'll ask my custodians, I will ask my chain. ⁓ that's that's the cascading effect that you are talking about. So they be essentially a lot of these names which you listed would essentially be covered in this. One last question is this is with you is that can institutions still say that they are waiting for the post quantum ⁓ signatures or standards to mature?
Mansi: No, for the core standards. NIST has already finalized the first three post-quantum cryptography standards ⁓ ⁓ in August 2024. FIPS 203 is MLKEM for key establishment. ⁓ FIPS and 205 are for digital signature ⁓ and DSA based on Sphincs, also put digital signatures. ⁓ So for that changes the legal posture quite a bit. is no longer a neutral position. ⁓ digital assets, signatures are the key issue. ⁓ signs custody movement, what signs token issuance, collateral release and settlement instructions? ⁓ the answer is classical ECDSA or EDDSA, ⁓ institution has a migration problem. Dustin Moody from NIS NIST has already said that full integration will take time. So in summation the standards are not coming. The first standards are already here.
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Got it. I think I think this is this is very clear. ⁓ this is very clear ⁓ that th there is no point of waiting on the standards that you you already have established that FIPS two zero five, FIPS two zero four, that is delethium and in Sphincs is already out there, which was published in twenty twenty four. there's already standards which people should start integrating and they should not be, you know, looking out for much more ⁓ you know, confirmations from the NIST. ⁓ Anyways, these standards are published, so there is no ⁓ there's no no there's no delay in terms of even the NIST that you can say that NIST has not approved any standards. These standards are there, you you just have to go there and start applying them and get a passing ⁓ CBOM audit. So ⁓ this is cool, Mansi. I think I think now you have certain questions to me, you know, regarding the business side of things ⁓ of you know what all this executive order, how it's going to impact the institutions.
Mansi: Alright, let's jump in. So Parth, my first question to you on the business side of things is ⁓ are the key dates that the institutions need to keep in mind when it comes to the CBOM?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: So these are the five dates, windows that the institutions should track, Mansi. Very clear. First is June 22, 2026. That is the trigger date, and that is when the executive order of 144.12 is started the federal post quantum clock. The second is very clear, it is first 90 to 180 days from this day. is when the federal guidance and agency planning and contractor rule momentum will begin to form. The third is approximately March 2027. ⁓ That is the CBOM window. The CISA and NIST are expected to define the minimum CBOM elements ⁓ within days of the order, and that is, you know, approximately coming out to be March 2027. ⁓ So is the first major exposure ⁓ point for private institutions because that why when they will understand that okay, these things are covered and I have to get these things audited, and my audit will either fail or pass. Now the fourth date is very critical, Mansi. This is December 31st, 2030. Federal high value systems must migrate key establishments to PQC and the contractor pressure becomes much more concrete. The fifth is December 31st, 2031. That is where federal high value systems must digital signatures to PQC. That means 2031 is the last date. Where the high value systems should have migrated completely 100% without any lapse to the post-quantum cryptography. For crypto, 2031 is the most important date because digital assets move through signatures. And the institutional reality is very simple: 2026 creates the clock, 2027 creates the audit mechanism, 2030 creates the procurement pressure, 2031st creates the signature deadline. The firm that wait until 2030 will be too late. so just to sum it up, 2027 is the CBOM year and 2031st is the signature year.
Mansi: Right, so we don't have as long as we'd like to have. that is actually ⁓ very informative part and ⁓ move on to the next question. which is basically what does this actually mean for the board, ⁓ general counsels like me and ⁓ regulated
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Mm-hmm, it means that post-quantum risk is now a legal shape, has legal shape. And and you can basically can the legal ⁓ can read it, legal eyes can shape it, it has dates, it has standards, legal loves those things, ⁓ has named federal agencies, it has procurement consequences, it has audit evidence, and that changes the board oversight. A board now can be asked, did ⁓ know your infrastructure dependent on ECDSA or or you know ED ⁓ EDDSA? Did you ask vendors for a CBOM? Did you review the chain level signing dependency? Did you assess Ethereum Solana Canton, Bitcoin or Stellar Exposure? ⁓ you create a migration plan before procurement pressure arrived? Legal teams do not need to prove that a quantum computer break is coming tomorrow. They need to prove the institution acted reasonably ⁓ the risk became named, dated, standardized. So that already has happened with this order mancy. So for BlackRock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, State Street, City, BNY, DTCC, Broad Ridge, MasterCard, Circle, Paxos, Fireblocks, BitGo, Coin Prime, Copper, Zodiac Custody, Securitize, this is not a panic. It is a diligence. So once the risk has been named, it has been dated, it is now auditable. Weaver waiting becomes a very weak defense for any board of these institutions.
Mansi: Mm-hmm. on. many custodians will say we use MPC, so we are safe. ⁓ Is a correct assumption?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: No, definitely not, man. See MPC is important, but it is not make the underlying blockchain signature post quantum safe. MPC solves the key management. It can split the signing authority, it can prove policy controls, it can reduce the single key compromise. But if the final on-chain transaction is still verified through ECDSA, the settlement layer still remains classical. So that is the hard truth. If Fireblock, ⁓ Fireblock and BitGo Anchorage Copper and Coin Pri Coinbase Prime, Taurus, Zodia, Fortify. They sign the transaction on Ethereum Solana, Canton, Bitcoin, or Stellar. The question is not whether the custody workflow is sophisticated. The question is whether the final settlement is post-quantum defensible. Ethereum means ECDSA exposure. Solana means ECDSA exposure. Canton means ECDSA exposure. So MPC can split the key. It cannot make Ethereum Solana Canton post quantum. If you have to, you know, you have to go post quantum safe, then you have to. Connect with it at Eterna X. You can go, you can have MPC post quantum safe. at Eterna X, you can have HSM, custody, post quantum safe, ⁓ with Eterna X. So ⁓ one line, you know, ⁓ MPC basically secures the workflow. It does not automatically secure the settlement primitive. ⁓ the underlying ⁓ thing would be wrong that you know we custody and custody ⁓ is is ⁓ is is equally unsafe in the post quantum world.
Mansi: No, that is a very insight into how actually make custodies safe, especially when institutions are moving into crypto very quickly. that is actually ⁓ very eye-opening ⁓ for our I'm sure. moving on to next question, part. ⁓ why do you think stable coins, tokenized funds, RWAs, and collateral ⁓ are the highest categories ⁓ when it comes Post quantum
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: yeah, ⁓ definitely, Mansi. I think this is very ⁓ this is very, very critical because when it comes down to these assets, these ⁓ this is one point which is r ignored a lot of times. These are long duration financial claims. It's not a five year, it is not a six year, seven year, it is a thirty year, fifty year, hundred years claims. And you know, there a lot of ⁓ you know public companies which are still, you know, listed. You know, 60 years back and they're still running, their shares are being traded and they grow over the period. So it's not that these shares get, you know, lost. I mean, these are long duration financial claims. A stable coin is a payment infrastructure, a tokenized treasury is a financial claim, a tokenized fund share is a regulated ownership, a collateral token is a balance sheet infrastructure, a settlement instruction is a market plumbing. So these assets must survive audit ⁓ Mansi, they should survive custody. They should survive redemption, reporting, compliance, and legal review for years. That makes the signing layer very strategic. A stable coin issued on Ethereum, it inherits ⁓ you know the dependency on ECDSA. A tokenized play payment flow on Solana that inherits again the ECDSA dependency. The institutional flow on Canton again inherits the same problems of ECDSA. So the issue is not only the issuer, custodian, administrator, it is the full cryptographic path from the authorization to the settlement. So for Circle, Paxos, PayPal, JP Morgan, City, MasterCard, BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Wisdom Tees, Strait Street, Securities, Hamilton Lane, KKR, Apollo, the question is very simple. Can the asset survive post quantum audit or not? Postquantum is not only security, it is a compliance access and distribution system. Larry Fink from BlackRock has already said that every stock, every bond, every fund. Can be tokenized and will be tokenized. The asset is the is only as PQ ready as the signing layer that moves it. This is the important point here, one see. So I mean ⁓ this is all this is all very much tied to the base layer. If the base is not post quantum safe, then it's it's very difficult.
Mansi: Right. that is clear that every asset ⁓ its own ⁓ quantum migration debt. ⁓ unless that is resolved, the asset ⁓ wouldn't be safe. that is very important thing, I for issuers ⁓ and the entire Street to understand as the entire Wall Street moves on chain. ⁓ moving on to the next question part. Why do you why do E C D S A and E D D S A become migration debt? Can you elaborate a little bit more on that for our listeners?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Yeah, definitely, Mansi I think because because see the institutional asset they live longer than crypto narratives that I have already told you. The customer wallet can migrate quickly. The meme token can disappear. But tokenized funds, stablecoin reserve flow, rails, settlement ledger, custody stack, they cannot simply say that we will move later. The problem is migration requires wallet updates, account migration, custody changes, smart contract compatibility, ⁓ attestation, investor communication, legal review, and audit evidence. Sometimes migration is not clean because the contract is immutable. So the chain upgrade is uncertain or institutional dependencies are already live. So is why you know we can say that you know ⁓ the ECDSA migration is not just algorithms, they become migration debt. Ethereum is not just liquidity, it is a migration debt. Solana is again, you know, not just throughput but a migration debt. And Canton again, not just institu institutional workflow, it is basically a migration debt unless the production signing layer becomes PQ native. That is what Eterna X says already, and that is what we have been stressing upon for the institutions in whom we are discussing with that PQ native issuance takes away all these problems. There are a lot of problems with the migrations with all these chains are facing, and we will publish that report pretty soon. That ⁓ this is ⁓ very critical. They should adopt PQ native, basically saying that today when they issue, they issue on a chain which is PQ native day one, so that they do not have any migration challenges or any migration problem. And a CBOM audit will be a pass for them on EternX. So this will make ⁓ this audit will and they will pass the CBOM audit, and this can be used as a distribution edge as well. as ⁓ you know ⁓ with with this thing. So Ethereum, Solana, and Canton are not only networks in a PQ review, they are cryptographic dependencies, which I know there is a lot of ⁓ you know that there is a lot of lack of education on these topics, but we are bringing a very well-rounded report ⁓ to cover the challenges of these three. And mind ⁓ you know, Mancy, we are we are stressing on this point again. This report ⁓ very critical for the readers. Because who say or who assume that you know just plain migration will solve everything because a lot of things are not also in the hands of the chain itself. So there are a lot of ⁓ problems which are outside that, which the chain may not solve also for the people. So there are a lot of ⁓ immutable contracts which are used by DeFi which just cannot be changed. So they have to suffer a lot of losses. Those things are very real threats and challenges. So yeah, we'll publish that report pretty soon, Mancy, and and ⁓ our listeners and yourself and and and into the community they will have it for review.
Mansi: Yeah, no, that sounds like a very report and we look forward to ⁓ looking into it and understanding post threat ⁓ map all us. now coming to Eterna can you tell me a little bit more about why Eterna X focuses on ⁓ Sphincs Plus or SLH DSA?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: Yeah, definitely, Mansi This is this is one of the basic, very basic questions that we get asked a lot, ⁓ you know, that you know, there are three schemes. One is Falcon, Delithium, and Sphincs. which is ⁓ w why do we go for Sphincs and why do we suggest the institutions to go with Sphincs? So institutional finance should be optimized for the lowest cryptographic recret. Full stop. That is the line. The ⁓ Sphincs or the MLDSA, which is Dilithium, is finalized and will likely become a major enterprise default. Right. Falcon may become attractive where where compact signature matter ⁓ once its path has been completed. But with Sphincs and SLHDSA or SLHDSA, the different has a different institutional value proposition. And that value proposition, Maansi, is It is hash-based. For long-lived ownership, custody authorization, stablecoin issuance, tokenized fund transfer, and settlement finality. The question is not which signature is the smallest. The question is which foundation reduces the chance of second migration. So what I am trying to say here is that you are migrating one to once today to a PQ post-quantum migration scheme. The chances of future migration you have to reduce. Because you don't want this problem, you know, again and again in your life. So Sphincs has larger signatures, but it solves this problem. You will never it is it is one of the most oldest it is the most battle-tested schemes, it has survived you know attacks. There have been no ⁓ noted attacks on Sphincs, ⁓ and the the the the absolute genius of it goes to the hash-based structure. So this is real. But that is why the architecture also matters. Legacy chains were not designed around post-quantum signatures. Eterna X, on the other hand, is designed around Sphincs from day one. So the goal is approved scheme security in the background. You get a clean passing CBOM evidence audit compliance and market speed settlement in the product. So we are at Eterna X, not we are not compromising at the speed, Mancy. We are providing you 50k to 200k TPS ⁓ Sphincs, which is the most heaviest. Why are we able to give it? Because we have designed the chain around this. And and the rest of the chains are not ⁓ around it. So for long-lived financial assets, the is that is optimized for lowest cryptographic ⁓ regret.
Mansi: I think that's very quotable for myself and I'm sure the viewers as well. the lowest cryptographic regret. coming the architecture now, Barth, ⁓ what does a post quantum native look like ⁓ at infrastructure level?
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: So, yeah, Mansi, so post-quantum native means that chain is designed for the post-quantum signatures from the inception. Retrofitting PQ signatures into existing chain is not a small upgrade, right? That we have decided and we have communicated as well. it is a structural redesign. So according Eterna X, you know, ⁓ the ⁓ architecture analysis, we we have, you know, we we have done this ⁓ analysis about different chains. Ethereum loses approximately 84% of the TPS The PQ signature. Solana has publicly reported 90% Canton loses 88% of the TPS. Stellar loses 90% of the TPS. So this is a structural problem for institutional settlement. Eterna X was designed from day one with the Sphincs, which the most conservative PQ scheme under ⁓ NIST 205. And this the transaction signing primitive. This is not a future upgrade. It is not a roadmap. It is the base layer. We start with this at eternax. So according you know, our basically our features are, you know, we have 50k to 200k TPS, we 20 to 50 milliseconds of finality, we have 400 to 500 milliseconds of hard finality, and we face approximately just 2% of TPS loss under PQ signatures as compared to 80% or 90% Ethereum Solana or Stellar or Canton. So you run a CBOM on Ethereum. It returns fail. It says you use E C DSA, hence you fail. You run CBOM on Solana, it says fail. Run CBOM on Canton, it says fail. You run CBOM Eterna X, it returns delete it returns ⁓ SLHDSA under FIPS 205. A clean conservative pass. So that is what a clean CBOM looks like. And ⁓ you know Ethereum E C DSA, Solana again, you know, same. ⁓ it ⁓ eternal X returns ⁓ SLH DSA under FIPS two zero five.
Mansi: Yeah, I think that loss of ⁓ percent versus two percent is pretty stark and ⁓ is something that ⁓ institutions should consider. that is a very interesting observation from ⁓ this that X has ⁓ conducted. moving on, ⁓ what ⁓ is Eterna answer ⁓ one clean business if you had to ⁓ put it like ⁓
Paarrthhh - Cofounder EternaX: So great question, Mansi. So Eternal X is a post quantum native infrastructure for the, you know, institutional digital assets. The market does not need another chain that promises, you know, migrate later. And that's that's what we you know we we never say we are PQ native, you come on us and you become you know, post quantum day one. ⁓ The needs infrastructure that is designed for post quantum compliance world from day one inception, and that means That Sphincs and SLH Sphincs or SLHDSA based security under FIPS 205 is one. PQ safe custody workflows is day one. Auditable privacy is day one. Clean CBOM readiness day one. Market speed settlement day one. Stablecoin tokenized fund RWA collateral movement institutional settlement. Institutions do not need to buy narratives. They buy defensibility. Can this pass the audit? Can this satisfy procurement? Can this support regulated assets? Can this survive board review? Can this reduce migration debt? The first institution to become you know PQ native will market it as an eligibility. Eligible for banks, eligible for federal agency, federal agency ⁓ adjacent procurement, ⁓ eligible for tokenized collateral, eligible for long duration institutional assets, ⁓ this is the Eterna X-wedge. So if you come with us and join with us like the many institutions that are discussing with us and joining us on this PQ native journey. If institution comes to us, ⁓ they use post quantum native ⁓ not as a strategic advantage, also ⁓ as an regulatory because now the audit requirement is clean for them. It is already, you know, there will be plusing the CBOM audit With flying colors while their competitors will be lagging behind. So this is the narrative that we we have. And PQ native is not, you know, just not a security now, it is an institutional eligibility, I would say. JP Jamie Diamond from JP Morgan Chase has already said that a whole new set of competitors are coming and emerging in the blockchain space ⁓ around tokenization and everything. So I mean this is a good time for everybody to, you know, gain the edge very early on. And ⁓ we can start. So I'll quickly recap, Mansi, what we have you know ⁓ said. There is a lot of things beautiful ⁓ the lot of good things that have been you know spoken about in this ⁓ particular know the podcast, and I would like to summarize those for our listeners ⁓ the end who who want you know clear summary of what has happened. So the final takeaway for the institutional crypto, what is it from this? Is takeaway is very simple. Crypto is preparing for a wrong audit. The market is watching reserves, custody controls, and regulation. But the next institutional capital the question is very basic. ⁓ signs the asset? Executive order has 14412 creates that clock. ⁓ CBOM creates the audit mechanism. The NIST created the approval migration path already. ECDSA and EDDC DSA create the exposure. Ethereum, Solana, Canton do not fail because they are bad networks. they fail because the post-quantum readiness is screen inside the CBOM because their production ⁓ signing layer is classical. So the MPC does not remove that exposure if the final settlement still depends on classical signature. And ⁓ we observed that retrofitting you know PQ signatures into existing chains creates 84% to 90% of the capacity loss. Eterna X is designed Sphincs SLHDSA that is 205 from day one. ⁓ one of the NIST approved schemes with approximately 2% TPS loss under the PQ native architecture. For institutional digital asset, the question has is no longer on which chain ⁓ has the liquidity today. The question is which infrastructure can defend the asset ownership, the custody authorization, stablecoin issuance, tokenized fund transfer, collateral release, the privacy workflows, settlement finality in a post-quantum compliance world. So this is Eternaek's thesis. The next crypto crisis may not start with a hack, it may start with a CBOM audit. And market will ask one question what signs the assets? And that is the last question that I'll you know leave ⁓ the team and and you know the D the listeners with. ⁓ I will ⁓ will post the blog blog as well that we have written. It is a very clear blog on on this executive order. that will be provided in the in the description box and Thank you, Mancy, once again, you know, for taking out the time. ⁓ the Mancy is is the legal and the regulatory genius that we have with ⁓ with us. And she has been on on ⁓ with us on the Eternalized journey, you know, guiding us on the legal and regulatory developments. This was one of the biggest ⁓ legal and regulatory ⁓ developments. And and thank you, Mansi, for providing your wonderful thoughts here. And ⁓ to our listeners, ⁓ you know, we would request you to keep ⁓ keep listening to us and subscribe us. And ⁓ we keep on posting the interesting developments in the post quantum space. So thank you. Thanks a lot. Bye bye.
