DFINITY founder Dominic Williams has warned that advances in artificial intelligence could pose a more immediate challenge to cryptocurrency security than quantum computing, arguing that AI could rapidly change assumptions underpinning cryptographic systems.
In a post on X, Williams said an AI-driven result challenging the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH), a long-standing assumption in computational complexity theory, showed how quickly established ideas could be questioned. He argued that the development did not currently threaten core cryptographic algorithms, but demonstrated the potential for AI to disrupt the theoretical foundations on which digital security depends.
The Exponential Time Hypothesis concerns the computational difficulty of certain problems and is used in theoretical computer science to support conditional results about algorithmic complexity. Williams said the latest development illustrated how AI could alter the assumptions researchers have relied on for decades. The specific research behind his claim was not identified in the supplied post, so the result and its implications require independent verification.
Williams contrasted this risk with the growing interest among blockchain networks in adopting post-quantum cryptographic signatures. These schemes are designed to withstand attacks from sufficiently powerful quantum computers, which could eventually threaten some of the cryptographic methods used today.
He argued that the immediate risk from cryptographically relevant quantum computers should be assessed separately from the risks posed by AI tools that are already widely accessible. He also cautioned that adopting newer cryptographic schemes can introduce risks of its own if the algorithms have not been studied as extensively as established alternatives.
Williams cited the reported use of AI to identify issues with HAWK, a post-quantum signature algorithm, as an example of how automated analysis could expose weaknesses during the development and standardisation of new security systems. The circumstances and status of that case were not independently established in the supplied material.
The DFINITY founder criticised blockchain projects that promote post-quantum upgrades as evidence of technical leadership, suggesting that some initiatives are driven by token marketing rather than a clear assessment of security needs. He said adding support for a new signature scheme could offer promotional value while introducing complexity that users may not fully understand.
His argument does not mean post-quantum cryptography is unnecessary. The timing and nature of the threat depend on the systems involved, the data being protected and the capabilities of future quantum machines. Some organisations are already adopting post-quantum encryption to protect sensitive communications against so-called “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks, in which encrypted information is collected today in the hope of decrypting it when more capable quantum computers become available.
Williams said this threat to stored communications was different from the use of post-quantum signatures across blockchain networks. He maintained that security decisions should be based on the specific risks being addressed rather than the appeal of a technology narrative.
He said DFINITY would focus on mitigating risks from AI and would not join what he described as the current rush towards post-quantum signatures across crypto networks. The organisation’s approach, he said, would prioritise what it considers responsible engineering over promotional claims about quantum readiness.
The debate highlights two distinct challenges for the crypto sector: preparing for future quantum capabilities and responding to AI systems that can already assist with complex code and mathematical analysis. Neither threat can be assessed solely through marketing claims, and decisions about cryptographic upgrades require scrutiny of the underlying research, implementation and potential risks.
Dear Reader,
Ledger Life is an independent platform dedicated to covering the Internet Computer (ICP) ecosystem and beyond. We focus on real stories, builder updates, project launches, and the quiet innovations that often get missed.
We’re not backed by sponsors. We rely on readers like you.
If you find value in what we publish—whether it’s deep dives into dApps, explainers on decentralised tech, or just keeping track of what’s moving in Web3—please consider making a donation. It helps us cover costs, stay consistent, and remain truly independent.
Your support goes a long way.
🧠 ICP Principal: ins6i-d53ug-zxmgh-qvum3-r3pvl-ufcvu-bdyon-ovzdy-d26k3-lgq2v-3qe
🧾 ICP Address: f8deb966878f8b83204b251d5d799e0345ea72b8e62e8cf9da8d8830e1b3b05f
Every contribution helps keep the lights on, the stories flowing, and the crypto clutter out.
Thank you for reading, sharing, and being part of this experiment in decentralised media.
—Team Ledger Life
Community Discussion