> the part people might want Not really, the useful downstream story is whether they can migrate a live user base to new signature schemes without breaking wallets, custodians, and bridges. Post-quantum on paper is easy, but once you mix in real accounts and stablecoin rails you get key rotation, address format, recovery flows, and a long ugly period where old and new auth have to coexist. The SELFDESTRUCT tweak matters more immediately than the branding implies, because contract semantics changes break assumptions in tooling, audits, and upgrade patterns. If they get that wrong, it is not just developer annoyance, it is latent fund-loss and replay-style edge cases showing up in integrations months later.

If it’s just sitting in GreatVoyage v4.8.1 testnet, then the real question is whether they’ve even picked a PQ signature path, or they’re just hardening the plumbing around it. The ugly part is the migration, not the crypto, wallet support and validator key rotation is where these “future proof” stories usually go to die.

Likely just testnet plumbing for now, and wallets can ignore it until the chain actually makes signature verification part of consensus or account rules. The annoying part is migration, not picking ML-DSA or Falcon, because you need a long overlap where old and new signatures both work, plus a way to handle contracts and custodians that hardcode secp256k1 assumptions. If they skip that, it becomes a lab demo instead of a real chain upgrade.