
dog dad. privacy, post quantum and mev at @circle. 2x founder. views are my own
Austin, TX
Joined April 2015
- Tweets2.4K
- Following602
- Followers5.4K
- Likes4.2K
Chris Ries retweeted
Strong disagree. Lattices have juicy mathematical structure, ripe for AI to attack. And the succinct versions based on module SIS are too new -- only around since 2012.
I recommend waiting another 3-5 years for AI to kick the tires, before entrusting serious $ with it.
DYOR; stay safe.
There are a number of inaccuracies in this post so I feel the need to intervene here in a way that others can understand. A 🧵
To be clear: The quantum threat is very real, but must be met with methodical planning and coordination (certainly not "bunker mode").
Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash.
Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase).
Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets.
IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster).
Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot.
Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time?
Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.)
Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once.
Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case.
I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026).
Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS.
Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security.
The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.
5/ Relying on unexposed public keys, where only a hash is on-chain until spend time isn't a viable long-term defense. Smart contracts, L2 state commitments, and DeFi protocols routinely expose or depend on public keys, so Justin's approach would break them.
3/ "Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence."
AI can accelerate theorem proving, but doesn't make elliptic curve discrete logs used to recover a private key from a public key any easier to solve.
Now this is how you do direct to consumer comms via postage. Excited to try it out!
Congrats on the expansion into Austin @JLopas and @ZachBDell
Chris Ries retweeted
Early takeaways from Austin Deep Tech Week:
1. Austin is a serious f*cking city.
SF is still the center of gravity.
LA has built an absolute monster around aerospace, defense and industrials.
But after spending a few days in Austin, I'm increasingly convinced this city has structural advantages that the coasts underestimate.
People I've met here seem to have one primary objective:
Build.
Heads down. Gas pedal pinned to the floor.
Noticeably less obsession with looking important and more obsession with actually making shit work.
Deep tech rewards exactly that mentality.
2. Texas being aggressively pro-business isn't some Twitter talking point. It's an actual competitive advantage.
Heard versions of this repeatedly from founders and investors this week.
Permitting. Regulation. Taxes. Energy. Land. Manufacturing. Expansion.
When you're building software, you can abstract yourself away from geography.
When you're building atoms, geography becomes part of your cap table.
Every additional month waiting on a facility, permit, power connection or expansion is effectively dilution.
Texas understand that speed matters.
3. The coastal migration isn't over.
SF and LA still have unbelievable technical talent density, particularly at the earliest stages.
But the requirements change when a deep tech company starts working.
Now you need 100,000 square feet.
Power.
Testing.
Manufacturing.
Suppliers.
Technicians.
Hundreds of employees.
Suddenly Texas starts looking a hell of a lot more attractive.
And founders here don't seem nearly as worried about convincing talent to follow them as outsiders assume.
4. The next chapter isn't companies moving to Texas. It's companies starting here.
Historically the playbook has often been:
Coast → prove technology → raise capital → expand into Texas.
I think that increasingly becomes:
Texas → Texas → Texas.
More technical founders will move here before starting the company.
More pre-seed and seed companies will originate here.
More headquarters will be planted here from Day 1.
And that's when the flywheel gets interesting:
Talent → startups → capital → exits → experienced operators → new startups.
Once that loop starts compounding, ecosystems become very difficult to stop.
5. Austin feels significantly less distracted.
There is obviously bullshit everywhere. Startups attract grift like flies to shit.
But there's noticeably less keeping-up-with-the-Joneses energy here.
Less worrying about who raised what round.
Less optimizing for appearances.
Less obsession with which VC follows you or which dinner you got invited to.
More:
Does the thing actually work?
That cultural difference matters more than people realize.
6. “But the capital is on the coasts” is becoming a lazy argument.
Have you ever heard of a f*cking airplane?
It's 2026.
If you're building a generational company in Austin and a great investor in SF wants into the round, they're getting on the plane.
Great companies don't travel to capital.
Capital travels to great companies.
Austin already has serious institutional capital on the ground alongside a growing ecosystem of smaller funds.
More capital will follow the companies.
It always does.
7. Austin increasingly looks built for where deep tech is going, not where venture has been.
Deep tech is becoming less about a handful of scientists sitting in a Bay Area lab and increasingly about deploying massive amounts of physical infrastructure.
Factories.
Energy.
Robotics.
Defense.
Space.
Advanced manufacturing.
Data centers.
Industrial systems.
Those businesses eventually collide with the physical world.
And the physical world cares about land, power, regulation, labor, logistics and speed.
Texas has a lot of all six.
SF still has the deepest venture ecosystem. LA has built an extraordinary deep tech machine.
But Austin doesn't need to become either of them.
It may be building something fundamentally different:
A startup ecosystem optimized not just for inventing hard technology — but for actually industrializing it.
That's a much more interesting proposition.
Came into Austin Deep Tech Week thinking this was an important emerging hard tech ecosystem.
Now thinking “emerging” might already be outdated.
Ingredients are here.
Talent is coming.
Capital will follow.
Unlike a lot of startup ecosystems I've visited, Austin feels like it actually wants you to build shit here.
That's a hell of a tailwind 🏭🇺🇸
Finally - mad props @Andercot, @CaitlinCloud9, @Jason_A_Scharf + many others for putting this together & making this a kickass week!
For any teams building on @arc or otherwise: you should really consider applying. I'm happy to review your application and give you a referral.
Just send me a DM. It could change your life.
Chris Ries retweeted
In a world where it’s easier than ever to start and scale a new business, customer service may end up being the ultimate differentiator.
last week @KashRazzaghi showcased how private assets will be deployed/managed on Arc
by this time next year, over 30% of assets deployed will be private
privacy will be a key driver for unlocking latent demand










