Quantum computing is often discussed in crypto as a future doomsday scenario—sometimes framed around the idea that Satoshi Nakamoto’s dormant Bitcoin could be drained once “Q-day” arrives. But Quantus Network CEO and co-founder Christopher Smith argues the first real-world impact may look far less cinematic: not a public, forensic-friendly hack, but a series of wallet breaches that are difficult to attribute to quantum capabilities at all.

Smith tells Cointelegraph that once quantum computers become powerful enough to break the public-key cryptography used by major blockchains, attackers may be able to derive private keys from public information on-chain. Crucially, the compromised pathway could avoid triggering obvious internal security failures in wallets or exchanges, leaving investigators with scant evidence beyond the fact that no meaningful breach was detected.

Key takeaways

• Q-day attacks may be hard to detect because they can be executed without compromising a wallet, device, or exchange infrastructure.
• Rather than only “Satoshi’s Bitcoin,” early quantum-enabled targets could include high-value administrative keys and other sensitive systems.
• Security researchers believe attackers might prioritize hot wallets at exchanges because they are less likely to raise alarms quickly.
• Predictions for when quantum can break modern elliptic-curve cryptography range from late-2020s odds to near-certainty in the early 2030s.
• Blockchain teams are already migrating toward post-quantum signatures, largely because waiting for certainty is too risky.

Why quantum theft could be indistinguishable from “normal” breaches

Smith’s central warning is that quantum-enabled compromise may not resemble the kind of intrusion that generates clear forensic trails. “When someone cracks your key, you don’t get a memo saying how they did it,” he said in an interview with Cointelegraph. In this scenario, an attacker could compute the corresponding private key after enough quantum capability exists—using information already visible on a public blockchain.

That shift in attack mechanics matters for incident response. Smith suggests that if a highly secure organization were targeted, “the only forensic evidence would be that there was no breach.” The attacker wouldn’t need to exploit the systems in which the wallet is running, nor necessarily leave traces of compromise in logs that would point to a conventional intrusion path.

Security expectations are therefore likely to be mismatched with how the earliest quantum-driven thefts would appear. If investigators primarily look for device-level compromise, key-management failures, or exchange-side intrusions, they could be left without the traditional indicators that typically accompany catastrophic key loss.

The first targets may be more strategic than famous

Much of the public concern about Q-day focuses on Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated holdings—described in the source reporting as worth roughly $63 billion at the time of writing. Smith argues that while that narrative dominates headlines, the first quantum-enabled targets could be elsewhere.

According to Smith, the earliest high-value targets might include military systems and state secrets. In the crypto ecosystem specifically, he points to the “single most valuable key,” suggesting it could be Tether’s minting key. In his framing, a quantum attacker could mint tokens from an administrative wallet and sell them before the issuer can react.

He also notes that USDT is deployed across multiple networks, and that some of those networks are already working on post-quantum migration. That detail underscores an important practical point: even where a stablecoin is widely used, the risk is not only about user wallets. Administrative or minting keys—or other privileged cryptographic roles—could be where quantum leverage becomes most economically damaging.

Another idea comes from Blockchain Capital security researcher Sean Cheetham. He argues an attacker would more likely pursue hot wallets at exchanges—particularly those “that aren’t going to ring alarm bells”—rather than trying to take famously held coins. Cheetham’s comment suggests attackers may optimize for timing and operational friction: quantum capability might not eliminate the value of choosing targets, it may just change how compromise is achieved.

Smith adds a further wrinkle: attackers could disguise quantum thefts by using plausible, deniable explanations. “There’s an alternative scenario where they… have these plausible, deniable [explanations]: ‘Oh, somebody just lost their keys somehow,’” he said. That increases the chance that quantum-related incidents could be misclassified as ordinary loss or conventional compromise.

Q-day timing remains uncertain as AI reshapes assumptions

Part of what makes Q-day hard to plan around is that forecasts have been moving as quantum progress and related algorithmic improvements develop. In March, Cointelegraph previously reported that Google accelerated its post-quantum migration timeline to 2029, citing an AI-assisted breakthrough suggesting elliptic curve cryptography could be cracked with fewer physical qubits than earlier estimates.

In the current reporting, NGRAVE CEO Roy Blackstone is cited for criticizing earlier quantum threat models that, in his view, did not adequately account for the parallel development of AI. The excerpt attributed to him argues that many threat models assumed ample time before public-key cryptography could be broken, but failed to reflect how quickly AI could evolve alongside quantum research.

Despite this urgency, there is still no single consensus on when quantum computers will be capable of breaking modern cryptography. Smith, whose company is building a blockchain network intended to be quantum-resistant from launch, says there is a “50-50” chance Q-day could arrive by 2028, arguing that continued AI-assisted improvements in quantum algorithms and ongoing hardware research make forecasts less reliable.

Cheetham’s view, as presented in the source, is that the early 2030s are “definitely almost a certainty,” while earlier dates are “more of a trailing probability.” Michael Coates, the Solana Foundation’s chief information security officer, declined to estimate during an earlier interview, telling Cointelegraph that “there’s no way to know.” He also pointed to a long-standing industry pattern: “it is always five years away,” a perspective he says has persisted for a decade or more.

Even with widely varying predictions, the recurring theme across these experts is that uncertainty should not become a reason to delay. Blackstone in the source emphasizes that blockchains have begun migrating to post-quantum signatures because “the damage would be catastrophic if they didn’t.”

What post-quantum migration changes for crypto security

The practical implication of these warnings is straightforward: migrating cryptography is the only way to reduce exposure as quantum timelines shift. While Q-day may be difficult to pinpoint, the risk model changes in a way that makes “wait and see” a poor strategy—especially because early quantum-enabled attacks could be indistinguishable from other security failures.

Post-quantum signature migration, as referenced in the reporting, is therefore not just about long-term research alignment. It changes what defenders can expect in real incidents. If a chain adopts post-quantum signatures, it narrows the window during which attackers might exploit public-key weaknesses through quantum computation. That also reduces the chance that a theft will be misattributed to a conventional breach.

It may also influence how exchanges and institutional custody providers prioritize key management and operational security. If an attacker can derive private keys without “breaching” systems in the usual way, then the strongest defense becomes cryptographic resilience rather than solely perimeter and device hardening.

The open question readers should watch next is how quickly major ecosystems complete post-quantum signature transitions, and whether their migration schedules account for the increasingly AI-influenced pace of quantum-related research. If the earliest quantum compromises can look ordinary, the timing of migration—and how consistently it’s implemented across networks and administrative key roles—may matter as much as any single “Q-day” date.

Australia’s anti-money laundering watchdog has suspended the operation of Cryptolink’s Bitcoin ATMs for three months, citing “ongoing concerns” about its compliance with anti-money laundering obligations. 

Australia has the highest number of crypto ATMs of all countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Australian authorities have been cracking down on the criminal use of crypto ATMs since at least late 2024. 

AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas said Monday the company’s Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) registration has been suspended for three months starting Sunday, meaning its crypto ATMs will not be allowed to operate during that time.

AUSTRAC said Cryptolink failed to meet basic reporting requirements, particularly threshold transaction reports, and did not respond to AUSTRAC’s request for information. 

“As part of our continued focus on digital currency as a money laundering risk, AUSTRAC has ongoing concerns about the company’s ability to manage high-risk transactions through its CATMs,” said Thomas. 

The action follows an enforceable undertaking that Cryptolink entered into with AUSTRAC in October 2025, after its Cryptocurrency Taskforce identified alleged breaches including late transaction reporting and shortcomings in Cryptolink’s risk assessments. AUSTRAC also issued a $56,340 infringement notice, which Cryptolink paid. 

Cryptolink has 96 ATMs in Australia, allowing customers to exchange cash for Bitcoin. Most of its ATMs are located in major cities including Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. 

Cointelegraph reached out to Cryptolink for comment. 

Related: Bitcoin Depot stock crashes 71% premarket after Chapter 11 filing

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Canary Capital’s XRP exchange traded fund ended the first half of 2026 with $81.6 million fewer net assets even after positive capital share activity added $82.4 million. 

An Aug. 7 SEC filing shows that falling XRP valuations more than offset the increase in shares during the six months through June 30.

The unaudited Form 10 Q puts XRPC’s net assets at $241.17 million on June 30, down from $322.82 million at the end of 2025. Meanwhile, outstanding shares increased from 16.49 million to 21.77 million as the fund created 5.65 million shares and redeemed 370,000. XRP itself fell 43.27% from $1.84 to $1.04 over the same period.

Investors poured $82 million into Canary’s XRP ETF, but falling prices erased double what they put in

One large allocation or the start of a broader bid? pic.twitter.com/z2cGvbw7hs

— Xora Finance (@xora_finance) August 10, 2026

Canary XRP ETF added shares while XRP erased value

The accounting behind the decline shows two forces moving in opposite directions. XRPC recorded $88.26 million from shares sold and $5.90 million from shares redeemed. The resulting $82.36 million increase from capital share transactions was outweighed by a $164 million decrease in net assets from operations.

Most of that operational decline came from XRP rather than fees. The fund recorded $159.70 million in unrealized depreciation, $3.59 million in realized investment losses and $716,898 in sponsor fees during the six month period. Unrealized depreciation was therefore almost twice the value added through net capital share transactions.

The contrast follows an initially strong reception for the fund. As crypto.news reported in its launch day coverage, XRPC generated about $58 million in trading volume when it debuted on Nasdaq in November 2025, making it one of that year’s largest new ETF launches by first day volume.

The $82 million figure is not simply investor cash inflow

The $82.36 million increase should not be treated as $82.36 million of retail investors depositing cash into XRPC. Canary’s SEC prospectus allows authorized participants to create and redeem baskets using either cash or XRP. Investors trading XRPC shares on Nasdaq do not directly create or redeem shares with the trust.

The latest filing shows the distinction clearly. XRPC purchased 34.13 million XRP valued at $52.20 million during the first half, while another 25.93 million XRP valued at $36.05 million entered the trust through in kind share creations. The fund also sold 3.93 million XRP worth $5.90 million to meet redemptions and reported no XRP distributed in kind for redemptions.

Accordingly, the filing supports describing the $82.36 million as net capital share activity rather than a direct measure of investor cash inflows. It does show that creation activity exceeded redemptions during the period.

XRPC held 31.7% more XRP but the position was worth less

XRPC’s XRP holdings increased from 175.63 million tokens at the beginning of 2026 to 231.28 million on June 30, a rise of about 31.7%. Yet the fair value of the XRP position fell from $322.97 million to $241.28 million because the underlying asset declined sharply.

That disconnect has also appeared across the wider U.S. XRP ETF market. In related ETF flow coverage, crypto.news reported in July that cumulative inflows across spot XRP funds remained well above their combined net assets as falling token prices reduced portfolio values.

The price weakness does not mean creations stopped altogether. More recent fund flow reporting showed XRP ETFs recording fresh net inflows on July 29 after a four day pause, while XRP remained near the $1.10 area.

XRPC assets slipped further after the June quarter

Canary’s latest published fund data shows XRPC remained below its June level after the reporting period. Net assets stood at $237.38 million on Aug. 7, with both NAV and market price at $10.85. Shares outstanding had increased to 21.87 million from 21.77 million at June 30.

The same data puts XRPC’s NAV return at negative 43.93% for 2026 through Aug. 7, compared with negative 42.84% through June 30. Its market price return was negative 44.22% year to date. Those figures show that the valuation pressure documented in the SEC report had not fully reversed by early August.

For XRPC, the next financial filing will provide another formal snapshot of whether continued share creation can offset movements in XRP’s price. The first half results already make the current dynamic clear: the trust accumulated substantially more XRP, but the falling value of each token left the fund with fewer dollars in net assets.

Grayscale withdrew registration statements for three planned U.S. altcoin exchange traded products on Aug. 7, ending the current registration process for its Cardano, Hedera and Polkadot funds. 

SEC records show the three Form RW submissions were accepted between 4:33:37 p.m. and 4:36:47 p.m. ET, a span of exactly 190 seconds.

The filings are withdrawal requests, not SEC rejections. Grayscale said it no longer intends to proceed with the planned distribution of shares under those registration statements. It also confirmed that none had become effective and that no securities had been issued or sold.

Grayscale withdraws three S-1 registrations

The Cardano filing sought withdrawal of registration statement No. 333-289948, originally filed in August 2025. The Hedera request covered No. 333-290129, first filed in September 2025, while the Polkadot filing covered No. 333-289949, also first filed in August 2025.

Grayscale Withdraws Registration Applications for ADA, HBAR and DOT ETFs

According to SEC filings, Grayscale filed three Form RW submissions on August 7, withdrawing the S-1 registration statements for the Grayscale Cardano Trust ETF, Grayscale Hedera Trust ETF and Grayscale… pic.twitter.com/haXOpqcOuE

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) August 10, 2026

Advertisement

Each request gives the same core explanation: the sponsor does not intend to proceed with the planned share distribution. The documents provide no separate commercial, demand related or regulatory reason. They also state that no preliminary prospectus had been distributed.

Meanwhile, the latest withdrawals follow earlier exits on the exchange listing side. SEC records show NYSE Arca withdrew its proposed rule change for the Grayscale Cardano Trust on Sept. 29, 2025. Nasdaq’s proposed rule changes for the Grayscale Polkadot Trust and Grayscale Hedera Trust were both withdrawn on Nov. 3, 2025.

Those exchange proposals were separate from the S-1 registrations withdrawn on Aug. 7. The Cardano review was covered as previously reported, while Nasdaq’s Polkadot proposal appeared in earlier related coverage. The Hedera review also entered the SEC process in March 2025, as crypto.news reported in its earlier coverage.

New SEC rules changed the crypto ETF approval route

The regulatory backdrop changed after those original exchange proposals were filed. In September 2025, the SEC approved generic listing standards allowing qualifying commodity based trust shares, including digital asset products, to list without a separate Section 19(b) rule change for each fund.

The faster exchange route does not replace Securities Act registration. A sponsor still needs an effective registration statement before selling shares. That distinction matters here because Grayscale withdrew the S-1 layer itself. A current overview of the U.S. ETF process explains how exchange listing and registration now operate separately.

What happens next for Grayscale’s altcoin ETF slate

Under Rule 477(b), an application to withdraw an entire registration statement before effectiveness is deemed granted when filed unless the SEC objects within 15 calendar days. The three requests therefore take effect without a separate approval order unless the Commission intervenes during that window.

The withdrawals do not establish that the SEC rejected ADA, HBAR or DOT products, and they do not prevent Grayscale from filing again later. For now, SEC records reviewed Aug. 10 show preliminary registrations for Bittensor, Aave, BNB, NEAR and Zcash at different stages. The Zcash registration received its third amendment on July 31.

Grayscale also has altcoin products further along. The SEC declared the Grayscale Avalanche Staking ETF registration effective on March 11 and the Grayscale Hyperliquid Staking ETF registration effective on June 2. Those differing statuses show the Aug. 7 filings are not evidence of a companywide retreat from altcoin exchange traded products.

What remains unknown is why Grayscale ended these three registrations together. The filings give no explanation beyond the decision not to proceed, leaving claims about investor demand, economics or regulatory resistance unconfirmed.

Bitcoin rose above $65,000 on Monday, up nearly 3% over the week, with July inflation data due Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. ET after Friday’s weak jobs report eased worries the Federal Reserve would need to raise rates.

Ether traded near $1,919 and is also up almost 3% on the week. BNB gained 0.3% to $603 and matched that weekly move. Solana was the strongest major, up 1% on the day to nearly $77 and almost 5% over seven days. Tron held at 33 cents.

XRP was the only major in the red on both views, slipping 0.4% to $1.03 and down 4% on the week. Hyperliquid’s HYPE fell over 1% to $54 but remains up over 3% on the week, and dogecoin eased to under 7 cents.

Equities set the tone. The MSCI All Country World Index rose 0.1%, its seventh gain in eight sessions, with the Asian gauge up 0.6% after Friday’s soft jobs report sent the S&P 500 to a record.

Chipmakers led, with a regional semiconductor gauge rallying more than 1.5% on gains at Taiwan Semiconductor and SK Hynix.

New York Stock Exchange President Lynn Martin said on Aug. 10 that the exchange is continuing to develop infrastructure for onchain settlement of tokenized securities, months after outlining plans for a dedicated digital trading platform. 

Speaking at a National Assembly seminar in Seoul, Martin also confirmed NYSE participated in The Depository Trust Company’s July tokenization initiative.

The remarks provide a fresh update on a project that has moved from an early development announcement into live industry testing. NYSE first disclosed the platform in January, while regulatory filings and its participation in DTC’s July production transactions have since provided clearer details about how tokenized securities could fit into existing U.S. market infrastructure.

NYSE Developing Onchain Settlement Platform for Tokenized Securities

NYSE President Lynn Martin said the exchange is developing an onchain settlement platform for tokenized securities and participated in DTC’s tokenization pilot in July.

Martin said NYSE will continue exploring… pic.twitter.com/XlF5ptE9We

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) August 10, 2026

NYSE tokenized securities plan moves beyond January announcement

NYSE parent Intercontinental Exchange first announced the platform on Jan. 19. The planned venue is designed to combine NYSE’s Pillar matching engine with blockchain based post trade infrastructure. ICE said it would support 24/7 trading, immediate settlement, fractional shares, dollar denominated orders and stablecoin funding.

Subject to regulatory approvals, the separate digital venue would support both tokenized versions of traditional securities and securities issued natively in tokenized form. Holders would retain conventional dividend and governance rights. The system is also being designed to support multiple blockchain networks for settlement and custody.

As previously reported in the exchange’s January plans, the project represents a broader attempt to bring blockchain settlement into regulated U.S. equities rather than creating an offshore tokenized stock product. Martin said in Seoul that NYSE views the industry as being at a “critical turning point between traditional finance and DeFi.”

DTC pilot gave NYSE a live production test

Martin said NYSE participated in DTC’s tokenization pilot in July. DTCC independently confirmed NYSE among more than 30 financial and digital asset companies involved in live production transactions completed on July 15. Participants also included BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Nasdaq, Circle, Ondo Finance, Citadel Securities and Vanguard.

The DTCC release said the exercise converted securities held at DTC into tokenized representations and used them in real transactions. Tests covered equity delivery versus payment, Treasury and repo transactions, securities lending, collateral pledges, equity transfers and central counterparty margin processes. The transactions ran across DTCC’s private Besu network and the public Canton network.

The July work was therefore more than a technical sandbox. It used DTC’s production environment and followed a December 2025 SEC staff no action letter permitting DTC to operate a three year tokenization program under specified conditions. DTCC plans to launch its broader Tokenization Service in October. As crypto.news reported in recent pilot coverage, the effort brings major traditional and crypto firms onto common settlement infrastructure.

SEC filing brings tokenized shares inside existing market rules

NYSE has also taken a separate regulatory step. An April SEC filing established rules allowing eligible securities to trade in tokenized form on NYSE during DTC’s pilot program. The filing became effective upon submission under the applicable SEC rule process.

Under that framework, tokenized shares can trade alongside traditional shares on the same order book when they have the same ticker, CUSIP, rights and privileges. Eligible securities include Russell 1000 components and exchange traded funds tracking major indexes. The tokenization choice does not alter order priority. In related regulatory coverage, crypto.news previously reported how the proposal keeps the assets inside existing national market rules.

There is an important distinction between that framework and NYSE’s planned dedicated digital venue. Trades handled through the current DTC pilot continue settling on a T+1 basis, according to the SEC filing. By contrast, NYSE’s separately announced digital platform is intended to support immediate settlement and 24/7 trading and remains subject to regulatory approvals described by ICE.

What happens next for NYSE’s onchain platform

NYSE has also been building the infrastructure around the proposed venue. In March, it signed an agreement with Securitize, naming the company as the first digital transfer agent eligible to mint blockchain native securities for issuers on the upcoming platform. Securitize Markets is also expected to participate as a broker dealer, subject to applicable requirements.

The next concrete milestone is DTCC’s planned October launch of its Tokenization Service following July’s production transactions. NYSE’s April rules also state that the exchange will provide members at least 30 calendar days of notice before beginning tokenized trading under the DTC pilot framework.

For the separate 24/7 digital platform, ICE has not replaced its original qualification that the venue is subject to regulatory approvals. Martin’s Seoul remarks instead show that NYSE continues pursuing the project while testing tokenized market infrastructure through DTC. Her comments frame onchain settlement as a potential part of global financial infrastructure, but its broader rollout still depends on regulatory and operational steps.