A migration path for exposed accounts
According to the XRP Ledger Foundation’s 2027 protocol roadmap, the proposed upgrade would allow an account holder to add a quantum-resistant signing key and then disable the account’s older key. That structure is intended to give wallets a practical migration path before quantum computers become capable of threatening today’s public-key cryptography.
The concern is most immediate for accounts that have already signed transactions. Once a public key is exposed on the ledger, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could potentially use it to derive the corresponding private key. That creates a larger risk for exchange wallets, institutional custody systems and other accounts that have processed payments over time.
CoinDesk reported that the proposed design would use ML-DSA-44, a post-quantum signature standard approved by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2024. The approach would not require every XRP Ledger account to change immediately. Instead, users and service providers could migrate accounts as the threat develops.
That flexibility could be important for large custodians. Exchanges would need to update wallet-generation and signing systems, while institutional operators would have to determine which accounts should be migrated first. The change therefore involves more than a cryptographic upgrade. It could become a long-term operational requirement for businesses managing large XRP balances.
Larger data requirements, unchanged fee
The main tradeoff is storage. The Foundation estimates that a quantum-resistant key and signature would occupy about 3,732 bytes, compared with roughly 105 bytes for a conventional payment. After accounting for ledger history and database overhead, a protected payment could require approximately 5,331 bytes, versus a current baseline of 1,704 bytes, according to the roadmap.
Despite that increase, the proposal would leave the XRP Ledger’s base transaction fee unchanged. Users would therefore avoid a direct fee increase, but validators and other network operators would need to store and process substantially more data. The decision reflects a familiar infrastructure question for public blockchains: whether the network can absorb a more expensive security model without passing the cost directly to users.
For XRP Ledger operators, the impact could include higher storage requirements, greater bandwidth demand and more pressure on hardware capacity. Those costs may be manageable if quantum-resistant accounts remain a small portion of total activity. They could become more significant if exchanges and other high-volume participants migrate large numbers of accounts at once.
Testing and implementation remain unresolved
The upgrade is not ready for deployment. An XRPL Standards discussion on ML-DSA-44 says the proposed amendment covers account signatures as well as validator, manifest, consensus and peer-signing functions. It also identifies unresolved conformance issues.
Developers still need to address inconsistencies among Python, server and JavaScript implementations that can produce different keys from the same seed. The network also needs testing to establish how validators perform when processing the larger signatures.
The Foundation has estimated 640 development hours and between $215,000 and $255,000 for review and auditing. A migration study is planned for the first half of 2027, followed by development and audits. Ripple’s broader post-quantum readiness plan targets a full XRP Ledger transition by 2028.
The proposal turns quantum security from a distant research concern into a planning issue for wallets, custodians and validators. Its success will depend not only on stronger signatures, but also on whether the ecosystem can manage migration, compatibility and infrastructure costs without weakening participation in the network.
- crypto.news · Link preview (og:image)
David Smith is not a person. No notebook, no deadlines, no face behind the name — just a byline this newsroom publishes under. Here is the production line underneath it, because a name beside a portrait reads like a journalist, and this one is not one.
The models. Writing: gpt-5.6-luna. Out on the live web: gpt-5.6-luna and gpt-5.6-terra. Pictures: gpt-image-1. Swap one in the newsroom and this line swaps with it — it is read off the machines, not typed here.
How a story is made
- Research. The searching model reads around the story, pointed at primary sources — the filing, the post, the repository — rather than at somebody else's write-up of them.
- Writing. The writing model drafts it against what was found, at David Smith's usual length and in David Smith's usual register.
- The loop. A reviewer reads the draft and sends it back with notes. Then reads it again. A piece can go round several times before it leaves the building.
- Enrichment. A quotation has to appear word for word on the page it is taken from. A chart may only use figures that appear in the source it cites. Whatever fails is dropped, and the reason is kept.
- Fact check. A last pass hunts for claims the article makes and its sources do not.
- A human stop. Sensitive subjects are held for a person to read before publication, and a person can kill any of it at any point.
If that sounds less like a newsroom and more like a factory: quite. It is called Press Factory.
This article was generated using AI and published automatically without human pre-publication review.
Read and checked by admin on 11/11/2026
How this article was made
The article was produced by the Grandmonts Media News Engine using automated research, drafting and verification workflows. No human editor reviewed the article before publication. Grandmonts Media remains responsible for the published content. Errors can be reported at office@grandmonts.cz.