Solana: High Performance Meets High Quantum Risk

Can the fastest blockchain also become the most quantum-secure?

Home > Cryptocurrency Readiness > Solana Case Study

High Risk (75/100)

Current State: Vulnerable with Performance Trade-Offs Ahead

Primary algorithms: Ed25519 (signatures, quantum-vulnerable)

Migration status: No public proposals or research (as of January 2025)

The dilemma: Solana’s entire value proposition is speed (65,000 TPS claimed). Dilithium signatures are 38× larger than Ed25519, threatening to destroy performance. Solana must choose: maintain speed and stay vulnerable, or adopt PQC and accept slower throughput.

Why Solana Is Different

Solana markets itself as “the fastest blockchain,” achieving high throughput through Proof of History (PoH) timestamps that allow parallel transaction processing, Gulf Stream for mempool-less transaction forwarding, Turbine block propagation protocol, Sealevel parallel smart contract runtime, and pipelining with Transaction Processing Unit optimizations.

These innovations enable 65,000 theoretical TPS (actual sustained: 2,000-4,000 TPS). For context, Ethereum does approximately 15-30 TPS, Bitcoin approximately 7 TPS.

The Performance Paradox

Solana achieved speed by optimizing every component for minimal overhead. Ed25519 signatures (64 bytes) were chosen for their speed and compactness. Dilithium signatures (2,420 bytes) undo these optimizations:

38× larger signatures = 38× more bandwidth per transaction

Slower verification = bottleneck in Sealevel parallel execution

Block size explosion = propagation delays (defeats Turbine)

Adopting PQC could reduce Solana’s throughput to Ethereum-like levels, erasing its primary competitive advantage.

Current Cryptographic Components

Component	Current Algorithm	Quantum Vulnerable?
Transaction signatures	Ed25519	✗ Yes (Shor’s algorithm)
Validator consensus	Ed25519	✗ Yes
Program accounts	Ed25519	✗ Yes
Proof of History	SHA-256 (VDF)	△ Weakened but not broken

Summary: All critical cryptographic components use Ed25519, which is quantum-vulnerable. Unlike Bitcoin (which has a mix of P2PK, P2PKH, etc.), Solana has architectural uniformity—every signature is Ed25519. This simplifies migration but doesn’t reduce urgency.

The Performance vs Security Trade-Off

Current State

Transaction size is approximately 250-500 bytes including signature, Ed25519 signature is 64 bytes, block time is approximately 400ms, and sustained TPS is 2,000-4,000.

With Dilithium

Transaction size would be approximately 2,600-2,850 bytes (6× larger), Dilithium signature would be 2,420 bytes, block time would likely be slower due to verification overhead, and sustained TPS would be approximately 300-700 (estimated 5-10× reduction).

Impact: Solana would drop from “fastest blockchain” to “similar speed as Ethereum Layer 1.” This undermines its core value proposition.

Potential Solutions

Option 1: Accept the Performance Hit

Approach: Implement Dilithium, accept 5-10× throughput reduction, market as “quantum-safe high-performance blockchain”

Pros: Straightforward migration (Ed25519 → Dilithium), still faster than many competitors, security-first positioning

Cons: Destroys primary competitive advantage, users chose Solana for speed and may leave for alternatives, higher fees (fewer transactions per block means higher demand for block space)

Option 2: Signature Aggregation

Approach: Combine multiple Dilithium signatures into one using cryptographic aggregation techniques

Pros: Could reduce signature overhead significantly, maintains throughput closer to current levels

Cons: Dilithium doesn’t natively support aggregation (requires research), aggregation schemes for lattice signatures are experimental, may take years to develop and standardize

Option 3: Use FALCON Instead of Dilithium

Approach: FALCON signatures are approximately 660 bytes (smaller than Dilithium’s 2,420 bytes)

Pros: 3.6× smaller than Dilithium, still NIST-standardized, less performance impact (approximately 10× vs approximately 2× transaction size increase)

Cons: FALCON is harder to implement (floating-point arithmetic), less library support than Dilithium, still 10× larger than Ed25519—significant overhead

Option 4: Layer 2 Escape Hatch

Approach: Move most activity to Layer 2 solutions that implement PQC, keep Layer 1 as settlement only

Pros: L2s can optimize for PQC without L1 constraints, maintains L1 performance for those willing to risk vulnerability, users choose security vs speed

Cons: Fragmenting activity across L2s reduces composability, L1 remains vulnerable (bridge security issues), contradicts Solana’s “monolithic L1” philosophy

Investor Takeaway

Solana faces an identity crisis: it cannot maintain both extreme performance and quantum security. The project must choose:

Prioritize security: Implement PQC, accept throughput reduction to 300-1,000 TPS

Prioritize performance: Delay PQC migration, hope for quantum timeline extensions or technical breakthroughs

Compromise: Hybrid approach with Layer 2 or signature aggregation (requires research)

As of January 2025, Solana has made no public statements indicating which path they’ll choose.

Governance & Leadership

Solana Labs is the core development company with significant influence, supported by the Solana Foundation nonprofit. The validator community includes approximately 1,900 validators with varying stake. There is no formal governance—decisions are made by the core team with community input.

Advantages: Faster decision-making through centralized leadership compared to Bitcoin paralysis, strong execution capability through Solana Labs’ technical team, and a history of multiple successful hard fork upgrades.

Disadvantages: Centralization risk where community may fragment if they disagree with Solana Labs’ approach, performance obsession where culture prioritizes speed and may resist changes that reduce TPS, and no quantum urgency as the public roadmap doesn’t mention post-quantum cryptography as of 2025.

Timeline Analysis

Optimistic scenario: Solana Labs begins PQC research in 2025, exploring FALCON or aggregation. Testnet deployment with performance benchmarks in 2026. Community approves approach and plans mainnet upgrade in 2027. Hard fork activates PQC in 2028, followed by user migration from 2028-2030.

Realistic scenario: No action in 2025-2026 as focus remains on scaling and DeFi growth. Quantum milestones trigger urgency and research begins in 2027. Implementation and testing occurs in 2028-2029. Hard fork in 2030, with migration from 2030-2032 possibly overlapping with Q-Day.

Pessimistic scenario: Team prioritizes performance over quantum threat from 2025-2029. Q-Day arrives in 2030 before migration starts. Post-Q-Day emergency hard fork under panic, messy migration, potential chain split.

Investor Verdict

Risk Score: 75/100 (High Risk)

Cryptographic vulnerability	+40 (Ed25519 across all components)
No concrete plan	+20 (no public proposals or research)
Performance vs security dilemma	+15 (core value proposition at risk)
Timeline pressure	+10 (5-7 years needed, 5-10 years until Q-Day)
Mitigating factors	-10 (strong leadership, technical capability, history of successful upgrades)

Similar to Bitcoin (78/100) in risk level, but for different reasons. Bitcoin has governance paralysis; Solana has a performance-security conflict.

What Solana Holders Should Do

Watch for announcements: Follow Solana Labs blog and GitHub for any PQC mentions
Monitor competitors: If Avalanche or Algorand move first, Solana may face pressure
Accept trade-offs: Quantum-safe Solana will be slower—decide if that’s acceptable
Diversify: Don’t assume Solana will solve this—hedge with quantum-ready alternatives

Ready to Learn More?

Explore how other major cryptocurrencies are preparing for the quantum threat

View All Case Studies

Learn About PQC