#Sei Giga and the problem most chains aren’t designing for yet

I don’t think about quantum risk in crypto as a future key swap where it’s just new signatures and libraries.

That framing completely breaks once you look at high-performance chains.

At Giga scale, post-quantum security is a systems problem:

– Current ECDSA signatures are ~64 bytes

– Post-quantum NIST signatures jump to 1.3KB–8KB+

– At 200k TPS, that’s ~0.5 to 1.5 GB per second in signature data alone

– The chain turns into a signature DA layer with an EVM attached
But @SeiNetwork's design naturally leans toward:

– zk proof batching

– recursive aggregation

– hash-based, post-quantum-friendly verification paths

– constant-size verification per block instead of per tx

Which opens space for:

– commit now, verify later models

– economic bonding instead of immediate cryptographic certainty

– treating post-quantum security as an incentive design problem

In practice, tx commits to a hash of its post-quantum witness, and expensive verification only happens when challenged or needed.

This is closer to how high-performance distributed systems survive real adversarial load.

In my mind, Giga fits a post-quantum future because:

– it treats verification cost as a first-class scaling constraint

– it designs around proof systems, not just signatures

– it frames security as a protocol + incentive + migration problem

– it assumes quantum safety must coexist with internet-scale throughput

Might be one of the few architectures that can become quantum secure without sacrificing performance. ($/acc)