Spot on, Nesibe.Quantum communication feels like one of those technologies that will quietly change everything just not overnight. The comparison to AI winters is spot on slow progress now but huge impact later.
Curious to see how PQC adoption unfolds as a practical bridge while we wait for QKD breakthroughs. What’s your take on who’s best positioned to set those standards ..governments, private alliances or open source initiatives?
Great question. The way I see it, standard-setting for PQC and QKD won’t have a single winner—it’s going to be a power play between governments, industry coalitions, and open-source communities, each with its own incentives and blind spots.
Governments, especially the US (NIST), China, and the EU, will push national security-driven standards because quantum-safe encryption is as much about cybersecurity as it is about geopolitical leverage. Private alliances—think cloud giants and telecom players—will drive adoption through practical, scalable implementations, making sure whatever gets standardized actually works in real-world infrastructure. Open-source initiatives, on the other hand, will be where a lot of innovation happens, especially in cryptanalysis and protocol hardening.
The real question is not just who sets the standards but how they interact. A fragmented approach could slow adoption, while too much centralization could lead to security risks down the road. It’s a delicate balance.
Spot on, Nesibe.Quantum communication feels like one of those technologies that will quietly change everything just not overnight. The comparison to AI winters is spot on slow progress now but huge impact later.
Curious to see how PQC adoption unfolds as a practical bridge while we wait for QKD breakthroughs. What’s your take on who’s best positioned to set those standards ..governments, private alliances or open source initiatives?
Great question. The way I see it, standard-setting for PQC and QKD won’t have a single winner—it’s going to be a power play between governments, industry coalitions, and open-source communities, each with its own incentives and blind spots.
Governments, especially the US (NIST), China, and the EU, will push national security-driven standards because quantum-safe encryption is as much about cybersecurity as it is about geopolitical leverage. Private alliances—think cloud giants and telecom players—will drive adoption through practical, scalable implementations, making sure whatever gets standardized actually works in real-world infrastructure. Open-source initiatives, on the other hand, will be where a lot of innovation happens, especially in cryptanalysis and protocol hardening.
The real question is not just who sets the standards but how they interact. A fragmented approach could slow adoption, while too much centralization could lead to security risks down the road. It’s a delicate balance.