Ethereum developers are exploring a path to protect accounts from future quantum-computing threats without waiting for a costly network upgrade. According to Ethereum Foundation researcher Nicolas Consigny, the “Kohaku” project lead, Ethereum could begin adding post-quantum protections at an estimated cost of as little as $0.07 per action, leveraging a new on-EVM approach rather than a hard fork.

Consigny shared details in an X post on Saturday and pointed to a corresponding research write-up on Ethresear.ch. The proposal adapts SPHINCS+, a post-quantum signature scheme standardized by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to make onchain verification cheaper on Ethereum. The work is framed as a stepping stone toward a future, more optimized design called “leanSPHINCS.”

Key takeaways

• Ethereum Foundation research proposes “SPHINCS-,” an adaptation of SPHINCS+ aimed at reducing onchain post-quantum signature verification costs.
• The approach is intended to work without requiring a protocol hard fork and without relying on a new precompile.
• Consigny describes SPHINCS- as an intermediate bridge toward “leanSPHINCS,” which targets even lower costs via signature aggregation.
• The motivation is long-term quantum risk to Ethereum’s current reliance on elliptic-curve cryptography for signatures.

From NIST post-quantum signatures to “SPHINCS-” on the EVM

In his Saturday post, Consigny outlined a proposal that takes SPHINCS+—a post-quantum signature standard—then modifies how it can be verified in an Ethereum smart-contract environment. The core claim is that the updated scheme can cut the onchain verification burden, allowing post-quantum protections to be introduced earlier than would be feasible with a full protocol change.

The paper describes the method as “SPHINCS-,” emphasizing that the goal is cost reduction on the EVM while keeping deployment practical. Consigny specifically positioned it as something that could be used before a dedicated hard fork is ready, which matters for an ecosystem where upgrading cryptographic primitives typically involves coordination, tooling updates, and migration planning.

Equally important, the proposal is not framed as a final destination. Consigny described SPHINCS- as a “bridge” toward “leanSPHINCS,” a future system intended to further lower verification costs by aggregating signatures—an efficiency technique that could reduce the amount of work required per verified authorization.

Why Ethereum is moving early on quantum-resistant accounts

Ethereum’s account security today depends on digital signatures tied to elliptic-curve cryptography. While quantum computers powerful enough to break widely used elliptic-curve schemes do not exist at the scale required in practice, the industry is preparing for a scenario where cryptographic assumptions change.

Consigny’s proposal is aimed at reducing exposure over time by introducing post-quantum protections before Ethereum has a full, consensus-level replacement of its signature layer. In that sense, the research is less about replacing everything immediately and more about building optional, deployable defenses that can become more common as better efficiency techniques—like the leanSPHINCS direction—mature.

The cost figure Consigny referenced—potentially as low as $0.07—signals a practical constraint: even if a cryptographic approach is theoretically correct, it may fail to gain traction if it is too expensive to verify onchain. By focusing on verification cost and deployment path (no hard fork, no precompile), the work tries to address that adoption barrier directly.

Quantum research outside Ethereum also underscores the urgency

The push toward quantum-resistant cryptography is not happening in isolation. Earlier coverage highlighted real-world proof-of-concept research demonstrating that quantum algorithms can threaten certain elliptic-curve constructions under specific conditions. In April, post-quantum startup Project Eleven awarded a prize to researcher Giancarlo Lelli for using a quantum computer to break a 15-bit elliptic-curve key, using a variant of Shor’s algorithm.

Bitcoin is often used as the contrasting example because it relies on 256-bit elliptic-curve keys, which are far larger than the small key size used in the demonstration. Still, the episode fed broader discussions on whether the academic-to-practical gap for quantum attacks could close faster than many expect.

Glassnode’s analysis, as cited in the same broader conversation, suggested that a meaningful portion of Bitcoin could be “unsafe” in a future quantum attack scenario based on key exposure and address/key management practices. According to that reporting, about 1.92 million BTC—nearly 10% of supply—were considered “structurally unsafe,” while another 4.12 million BTC (20.6%) were labeled “operationally unsafe.” Glassnode estimated the remaining 69.8% (13.99 million BTC) as unexposed in that framework, broadly aligning with Ark Invest’s earlier March estimate that 65% of supply was safe.

While those figures concern Bitcoin rather than Ethereum, they illustrate the same practical reality that post-quantum migration isn’t just about cryptography. It is also about operational choices—how keys are generated, stored, and used—because those choices determine how quickly protections can be adopted when new threat models emerge.

What to watch next for Ethereum’s post-quantum roadmap

Consigny’s SPHINCS- proposal suggests Ethereum could begin experimenting with post-quantum protections in a deployable way ahead of a larger migration. What remains uncertain is how quickly “SPHINCS-” can move from research to mainstream adoption—particularly as the team evaluates tradeoffs between cost, security properties, and developer ergonomics compared with a more complete future design like leanSPHINCS.

Investors, builders, and wallets should watch for follow-up work on implementation details—especially any evaluations of real onchain costs in production-like environments—and whether client tooling, smart-contract libraries, or account abstraction flows begin incorporating these post-quantum verification options. As quantum timelines remain speculative, the most actionable signal is whether Ethereum can make post-quantum adoption routine without forcing a one-time hard fork.

TLDR:

• XRP was listed as an eligible asset in the SEC-approved T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF on June 12.
• The actively managed ETF can hold between 5 and 15 crypto assets under NYSE Arca listing rules.
• Senator Tim Scott projected crypto’s market cap could surge from $3 trillion to $30 trillion.
• The Clarity Act, backed by Ripple and Coinbase, could reach the Senate floor by July 2026.

XRP is gaining new institutional footholds as two major U.S. developments converge. The SEC approved the T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF on June 12, 2026, listing XRP among eligible assets.

Separately, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott projected crypto’s market cap could reach $30 trillion following passage of the Clarity Act. Both developments are broadening regulated access to XRP across investment channels.

Rowe Price ETF Expands XRP’s Institutional Reach

The SEC approved NYSE Arca’s proposal to list and trade shares of the T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF on June 12, 2026. The fund uses an active strategy to invest in eligible crypto assets.

This marks the asset manager’s first official entry into digital asset products, opening a regulated channel for institutional capital to flow into XRP.

The ETF will provide investors access to a portfolio of between five and fifteen different cryptocurrencies. The current draft includes Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, Cardano, Avalanche, Litecoin, Polkadot, Dogecoin, Chainlink, Stellar, Hedera, Bitcoin Cash, Shiba Inu, and Sui.

Crypto analyst Chloe noted on X that the structure gives institutional investors regulated exposure to XRP within a familiar ETF wrapper, lowering the barrier for traditional finance participation.

The T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF will benchmark against the FTSE Crypto US Listed Index but aims to outperform it through active portfolio management.

Under the approval, NYSE Arca added firewall rules for sponsor staff and conditions requiring equal portfolio transparency for all market participants.

The active management approach gives the sponsor flexibility to adjust XRP exposure as market conditions evolve.

Tim Scott’s $30T Projection Puts XRP in Focus

Senator Tim Scott has emerged as a central figure in shaping the regulatory environment for XRP and the broader crypto market.

Crypto commentator CryptoXAiMan highlighted on X that Scott projected the crypto market cap could grow from $3 trillion to $30 trillion after the Clarity Act passes, a forecast that has reverberated across institutional and retail circles alike.

Scott recently said the legislation is in the “red zone,” expressing hope to bring the Clarity Act to the Senate floor in June or July 2026.

The bill cleared the House with a strong bipartisan majority in July 2025 but faced months of delays as banks and stablecoin companies disputed key provisions around yield and DeFi treatment.

At a Senate committee hearing, Scott argued that developers, entrepreneurs, and investors had long faced uncertainty and enforcement actions instead of clear rules of the road.

The bill counts Ripple, Coinbase, Circle, and Andreessen Horowitz among its key backers. With Ripple’s direct role in advocacy, a favorable Clarity Act outcome positions XRP as a primary beneficiary of any market cap expansion that follows.

SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci and Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz said Bitcoin could reclaim $70,000 by the end of July 2026. 

They made the call on the latest All Things Markets episode, which centered on SpaceX, U.S. debt, inflation, crypto rules, and Strategy’s Bitcoin moves.

Scaramucci said he expects Bitcoin to return to $70,000 because market mood has turned too negative. He said any fresh buying could push BTC through that level. Novogratz agreed with a more measured view, saying the odds were about “70/30” if the CLARITY Act moves forward.

Debt and inflation shape the Bitcoin case

Novogratz linked the Bitcoin outlook to the U.S. debt load. He said the country has about $40 trillion in debt and cannot simply grow its way out of that burden. In his view, policymakers may need steady inflation to reduce the real value of that debt over time.

That argument supports the long-running hard-asset case for Bitcoin. When investors worry about money supply, debt, and weaker purchasing power, they often look at scarce assets. Still, Novogratz also warned that inflation can become hard to control if public trust breaks.

Meanwhile, Both investors also discussed the CLARITY Act, which could create clearer crypto market rules in the United States. Novogratz said he recently met lawmakers from both parties and still sees interest in passing the bill. He also said talks remain stuck on a few issues.

Those issues include ethics rules and legal treatment of privacy software. As previously reported, Galaxy cut its odds of CLARITY Act passage in 2026 to 60% as Senate time runs short. JPMorgan and Bitwise also gave more cautious views as the August recess approaches.

SpaceX and Strategy add market pressure

The episode opened with SpaceX’s public listing, which has become a new risk factor for crypto liquidity. As previously reported by crypto.news, SpaceX’s planned offering drew more than $250 billion in orders, nearly four times the amount it aimed to raise. The same report said crypto had already lost about $250 billion during the June selloff.

Later, crypto.news reported that ARK bought about $444 million in SpaceX shares, while the stock closed its first day almost 19% above its IPO price. That gave SpaceX a market value above $2.1 trillion and kept attention on whether capital was moving away from crypto toward large technology listings.

Scaramucci and Novogratz also reviewed Strategy’s small Bitcoin sale and later purchase. As previously reported by crypto.news, Strategy sold 32 BTC, then bought 1,550 BTC days later. Its total holdings rose to 845,256 BTC, while Michael Saylor pointed investors to Common Equity Bitcoin Exposure BPS as a risk measure.

Ethereum could begin adding post-quantum protections to accounts for as little as $0.07, without waiting for a hard fork, according to the Ethereum Foundation’s Kohaku project lead Nicolas Consigny.

In a Saturday X post, Consigny shared a paper proposing a cheaper way for Ethereum users to protect their accounts against future quantum-computing threats. The approach adapts SPHINCS+, a post-quantum signature standard developed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, to work more efficiently on Ethereum.

Dubbed “SPHINCS-,” the proposal aims to reduce onchain verification costs without requiring a protocol change or precompile. Consigny described SPHINCS- as a bridge toward a future post-quantum signature system dubbed “leanSPHINCS,” which aims to further reduce verification costs through aggregation.

The proposal seeks to address the long-term risk of a quantum threat to Ethereum’s Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm with a cost-efficient solution that may be deployed before a dedicated hard fork is developed.

Signature scheme SPHINCs variant security degradation and onchain verification costs. Source: Ethresearch.ch

Related: Adam Back says Bitcoin’s post-quantum shift may reveal true Satoshi stash

Future quantum computing threats stirs crypto community

In April, post-quantum startup Project Eleven awarded a prize to researcher Giancarlo Lelli for using a quantum computer to break a 15-bit elliptic-curve key.

Bitcoin’s keys are 256 bits long, significantly larger than the 15-bit key Lelli managed to crack. He derived the private key from a public key paired to it, using a variant of Shor’s algorithm, a quantum computing technique that theoretically poses a threat to the type of cryptography used by Bitcoin.

According to Glassnode, about 1.92 million Bitcoin, representing nearly 10% of the total supply, are considered “structurally unsafe” in a future quantum attack scenario. Another 4.12 million BTC, or 20.6% of the supply, are classified as “operationally unsafe” due to key or address management practices.

Source: Glassnode

The analytics company estimates that the remaining 69.8% of the supply, or 13.99 million Bitcoin, remains unexposed to a quantum computing threat, broadly in line with Ark Invest’s March estimate that 65% of the supply was safe. 

Magazine: Bitcoin vs. the quantum computer threat — Timeline and solutions (2025–2035)

TLDR:

• Michael Saylor introduced BPS, CEBE BPS, and BTC Yield to standardize Bitcoin treasury company evaluation.
• Strategy holds 845,256 Bitcoin worth $54.5 billion, with BPS at 220,016 satoshis per diluted share.
• CEBE BPS drops to 118,000–134,000 satoshis after deducting $6.75B debt and $15.5B preferred stock.
• BTC Yield of 12.8% year-to-date tracks BPS growth, though critics question the metrics’ independent validity.

Michael Saylor has introduced a new framework for evaluating Bitcoin treasury companies, offering three core metrics designed to bring consistency and transparency to the sector.

The metrics; Bitcoin Per Share (BPS), CEBE BPS, and BTC Yield: aim to standardize how investors assess Bitcoin-backed corporate strategies.

Strategy, Saylor’s company, holds 845,256 Bitcoin worth $54.5 billion and serves as the primary reference model.

BPS and CEBE BPS Define the New Measurement Standard

Bitcoin Per Share (BPS) is the first metric Saylor introduced. It divides a company’s total Bitcoin holdings by its diluted share count.

Strategy’s current BPS stands at 220,016 satoshis per share. This figure reflects total Bitcoin exposure before accounting for any senior financial obligations.

CEBE BPS offers a more conservative picture for investors. It subtracts senior claims, such as debt and preferred stock, before calculating Bitcoin per share.

Strategy carries $6.75 billion in debt and $15.5 billion in preferred stock. After these adjustments, Strategy’s CEBE BPS falls between 118,000 and 134,000 satoshis per share.

Saylor explained the distinction between the two metrics clearly. He stated via X: “BPS measures Bitcoin per common share before senior claims. CEBE BPS measures Bitcoin per common share after senior claims. CEBE is the conservative risk metric. BPS is the common equity growth metric.” The gap between the two figures reflects the weight of leverage on the balance sheet.

The relevance of each metric depends on liability duration. Saylor noted that short-duration liabilities make CEBE BPS the more important figure.

Longer-duration liabilities, however, make BPS more applicable. If Bitcoin’s annual return rate exceeds the cost of capital, BPS better captures the upside available to common shareholders.

BTC Yield Tracks Bitcoin Per Share Execution Over Time

BTC Yield is the third metric in Saylor’s framework. It measures the year-to-date percentage change in BPS. Strategy’s current BTC Yield stands at 12.8% for the year. This metric helps investors track whether a company is actually growing its Bitcoin per share over time.

The concept of amplification sits at the center of this framework. Saylor noted: “The difference between BPS and CEBE BPS is Amplification.”

A company with no debt or preferred stock would see BPS equal CEBE BPS, effectively tracking Bitcoin like an ETF. As liabilities increase, the two metrics diverge, creating room to outperform Bitcoin.

Not all liabilities carry the same risk profile. Short-duration, high-cost liabilities can convert amplification into underperformance risk.

Long-duration, low-cost liabilities, on the other hand, can work in favor of common equity holders. A well-capitalized Bitcoin treasury company, therefore, holds a structural advantage when managed correctly.

Reactions to the framework have been mixed across the crypto community. Supporters praise the metrics as a step toward greater transparency in Bitcoin corporate strategy.

Critics, however, argue that the measures lack independent validation. The debate reflects broader tensions around how Bitcoin treasury operations should be evaluated and communicated to investors.

TLDR:

• BSP has explicitly banned VASPs from listing or supporting anonymity-enhancing privacy virtual assets.
• VASPs must assess tokens across six pillars including issuer background, liquidity, and legal compliance.
• Ongoing monitoring is required, with deviation thresholds set as automatic triggers for token delisting.
• Misleading disclosures, market abuse, and cybersecurity risks are grounds for immediate token suspension.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has moved to strengthen oversight of the digital asset market in the Philippines. The BSP privacy virtual assets ban prohibits virtual asset service providers from listing or supporting anonymity-enhancing coins.

Alongside this, the central bank has ordered VASPs to adopt stricter token listing, monitoring, and delisting standards. The move marks a significant tightening of regulatory control over the fast-growing crypto sector.

BSP Sets Six-Pillar Framework for Token Listing

The BSP issued a memorandum requiring VASPs to establish a robust due diligence process for listing virtual assets. The directive was released by BSP Deputy Governor Lyn Javier and applies to all regulated platforms.

VASPs must assess each token across six defined pillars before listing. These cover issuer background, market maturity, use cases, transparency, traceability, security, liquidity, and legal compliance.

For issuer background, VASPs may review incorporation documents, financial statements, and ownership structures. Fitness checks on directors, officers, and operators of the issuing entity are also required.

VASPs must also examine potential conflicts of interest involving the issuer, other VASPs, or government officers. This level of scrutiny brings VASP standards closer to those applied to traditional financial institutions.

Market maturity factors include market capitalization, average 30-day trading volume, and issue price. The number of on-chain holders and the exchanges already supporting the asset are also considered.

VASPs must make whitepapers and project documentation readily accessible to customers. These documents should cover tokenomics, target users, supported blockchains, and relevant risk disclosures.

For transparency and security, VASPs may review the token’s underlying blockchain technology, consensus algorithm, and known vulnerabilities. Independent audits and coverage by blockchain analytics firms are also evaluation factors.

Asset-backed and fiat-backed tokens face additional scrutiny around minting, issuance, redemption, and value maintenance protocols.

Liquidity providers, withdrawal rights, and reserve composition are reviewed under the redemption and liquidity pillar.

Ongoing Monitoring and Immediate Delisting Triggers Required

Beyond listing approval, the BSP requires VASPs to conduct continuous monitoring of listed virtual assets. Platforms must set deviation thresholds that serve as automatic triggers for suspension or delisting.

Tokens that no longer meet the standards applied during initial listing must be removed. This ongoing requirement prevents platforms from treating listing as a one-time compliance exercise.

VASPs must suspend or delist tokens in cases involving adverse market developments or abnormal price movements.

Legal and regulatory non-compliance, cybersecurity concerns, and consumer protection risks also qualify as delisting grounds.

Misleading disclosures and market abuse are included in the list of immediate suspension triggers. The BSP’s framework applies a continuous risk-based lens to all listed digital assets.

The BSP privacy virtual assets ban is among the most direct provisions in the memorandum. Privacy coins, which obscure transaction details and user identities, are now explicitly prohibited from VASP platforms.

The ban targets anonymity-enhancing virtual assets that limit traceability and complicate anti-money laundering efforts. This positions the Philippines alongside other jurisdictions that have moved to restrict privacy coin access.

While the BSP outlined specific documentary requirements, it noted the list is not exhaustive. VASPs are permitted to develop their own internal listing frameworks, provided they align with BSP guidelines.

The regulator’s approach gives platforms some flexibility while maintaining baseline standards. This balance reflects a practical stance toward a market that continues to evolve rapidly.

TLDR:

• Spot Bitcoin ETFs shed $4.4B over 14 sessions before Thursday marked the first day of marginal inflows.
• Strategy added 1,550 BTC at $65,200, lifting its total treasury to 845,256 BTC amid retail panic selling.
• On-chain exchange outflows hit 6,133 BTC on Friday, signaling institutional accumulation at cycle lows.
• Oil falling to $85.25 and a US–Iran MOU draft lifted Bitcoin back to $63,600 in Friday’s relief rally.

Bitcoin bottom hunters are finding reasons for cautious optimism this week as several converging factors point to a potential market floor.

A 14-day ETF outflow streak finally snapped on Thursday, while institutional buyers quietly accumulated through the panic.

Falling oil prices tied to Iran deal progress and the anticipated SpaceX IPO are also drawing investor attention back to risk assets.

Together, these developments suggest early signs of a return to crypto markets, though confirmation remains pending.

Easing ETF Outflows and Institutional Accumulation Point to a Shift

Spot Bitcoin ETFs bled roughly $4.4 billion across a brutal 14-session outflow streak. Total AUM compressed from approximately $104 billion to $80 billion, the heaviest redemption run in over a year.

Source: CoinMarketCap

BlackRock’s IBIT and Fidelity’s FBTC absorbed the steepest selling pressure during that stretch. Spot Ether ETFs lost more than $700 million across the same period.

Thursday marked the first day of marginal inflows, snapping the negative streak entirely. The Fear & Greed Index sat at 16, deep in “Extreme Fear” territory, while the MVRV Z-score registered 0.34.

That level has historically aligned with capitulation lows in prior Bitcoin cycles. Bitcoin’s realized price near $53,500 further strengthens the case for a value entry zone.

Retail investors capitulated throughout the selloff, with Glassnode’s SOPR holding below 1.0 for most of the period. Coins changed hands at a loss, confirming broad panic among smaller participants.

Institutions, however, moved in the opposite direction. Strategy added 1,550 BTC between June 1 and June 7 at roughly $65,200, lifting its treasury to 845,256 BTC.

On-chain exchange data recorded net outflows of 4,281 BTC on Thursday and 6,133 BTC on Friday. Coins leaving exchanges typically indicate larger players moving assets into custody rather than preparing to sell.

On Hyperliquid, whales built their largest net long position in two months. The divergence between retail panic and institutional accumulation is currently at cycle extremes, a setup that has historically preceded a Bitcoin bottom.

SpaceX IPO Buzz and Falling Oil Prices Lift Risk Appetite

The anticipated SpaceX IPO is drawing fresh capital attention toward high-growth and speculative assets. Risk appetite tied to a landmark listing of that scale tends to lift sentiment across adjacent markets, including crypto.

Investors rotating into growth exposure ahead of a major IPO often broaden their positions into digital assets. That dynamic could channel incremental buying into Bitcoin at a critical technical juncture.

Oil prices falling to $85.25 per barrel after a draft US–Iran Memorandum of Understanding further improved the macro backdrop. The deal, if signed, could include suspended US oil sanctions and a Strait of Hormuz reopening.

Lower energy prices directly ease the inflation pressure that has kept the Fed sidelined. That matters for crypto, as the rate-cut narrative has been the primary macro headwind all week.

Bitcoin reclaimed $63,600 on Friday after Trump canceled threatened Iran strikes following the MOU draft. The Russell 2000 gained 3.0%, and equities staged their strongest session of the week.

However, the MOU remains unsigned, and the relief rally’s durability hinges on formal deal closure. Traders should treat the current bounce as conditional until confirmation arrives.

The macro picture remains complicated, with May CPI at 4.2% and Goldman Sachs pushing its first rate-cut forecast to late 2027.

Still, the combination of snapping ETF outflows, institutional accumulation, SpaceX IPO momentum, and easing oil prices marks a meaningful shift in tone.

Whether these signals compound into a confirmed bottom depends on the next several days of ETF flow data. For now, the setup is the most constructive it has been in two weeks.

“It doesn’t have to be done as a rulemaking,” said SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who has led much of the agency’s crypto work since the start of last year. In response to a question from CoinDesk, she said the SEC has exemptive authority that it routinely uses. “We can do it as a rule, but we don’t have to do it as a rule.”

In March, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins described the incoming policy as “an innovation exemption to facilitate limited trading of certain tokenized securities with an eye toward developing a long-term regulatory framework.” He said it would be “limited in time and scope, but long enough so that we can craft more durable rules that harness the full potential of these new technologies.”

More recently in May, he added: “I also think we should consider what a future-proofed framework may look like, which would take the form of notice-and-comment rulemaking and would address the ‘exchange’ definition as applied to onchain trading systems.”

CoinDesk canvassed the views of several lawyers who are former officials at the SEC, asking questions about the choice to put off formal rulemaking, and whether the interim work on this will hold up. Most agreed that the approach may not carry the highest force of SEC authority, but it’d still be difficult to put the toothpaste back into the tube if the next administration sees things differently.