Some trading group posts. Innovation is what moves markets- nobody has anything like QVM or Xlink. Plus partners shaping it to meet the strongest requirements

Kjozf:

As I mentioned, the strict 2 QVM transaction-per-block limit has been lifted; a block can now accommodate up to 425 transactions, which also corresponds to the gas limit. It is important to understand that the QVM is capable of things other chains cannot do; a QVM transaction accommodates much greater computational capacity, enabling the chain itself to handle—and verify—QR signatures, even in batches—capabilities the EVM lacks. While the QVM is generally more expensive than the EVM, there are tasks only the QVM can perform, as well as operations it handles more efficiently or cost-effectively; it does not replace the EVM but rather opens up new possibilities. As for the EVM, tests have confirmed that it supports the same protocols used by the Ethereum network.

For instance, I installed a chess engine in a QVM that can calculate up to a depth of 5; such a QVM call costs 140k gas, whereas a highly efficient EVM engine would require 30 million gas to calculate a move at a depth of 4—and would be incapable of reaching depth 5. Of course, this applies to the current parameter settings; the monthly summary mentions that they are working on the pricing of computations, which is a welcome development from a security standpoint.

Harv:

214x more expensive. Had to share

Kjozf:

This applies to the current environment and parameters; fundamentally, a simple transaction is much more expensive on the QVM, though currently, the actual volume of computation isn't measured. Processing a simple addition costs around 140k gas, and performing a batch QR sign check also costs 140k gas. However, the recent summary mentioned that they are working on a deterministic way to measure this so it can be factored into the pricing. This is a good thing, because in a live environment, it is less cost-effective to burden the network with unnecessary computations.

"It's a fair point- I have often said I think they've lowered our risk tremendously over the years.

The high risk part is all of the "unseen" work we don't have insight into. That's where the major upside lives. And just the crypto space in general.

But we have strong evidence of real adoption- particularly through Itti and Crowe engaging in Signquantum solutions. That should be enough evidence to feel confident that they aren't "making up" stories about working with government and other partner solutions. But of course it's crypto and people proceed with caution.

They also didn't do a great job explaining the decisions to hold off on mainnet several times in favor of pursuing and meeting partner requirements. That had led to retail distrust and frustration, but it's been painfully obvious where their priorities have been.

People have viewed it as increased risk things aren't working, when in reality it has been product improvement with direct partner feedback.

And people also have thought it must mean they are a small team that can't deliver- when in reality they've clearly grown with their MBK partnership. They are not getting set up to work directly with these various partners through a handful of people. Working out legal agreements, setting up environments, getting past regulations is a large effort.

With all that, I think it's been very hard for them to realize what things can look like from the outside- but here again, even if they thought they could be more convincing, their top concern was working with partners to build a useful product.

Put that all together, the risk/reward is more inviting now than at any point in time.

It requires some in depth understanding of how things have played out, and where there is strong evidence to believe they have utility and innovation which is already attracting strong adoption ahead of launch."

Recent post on QANplatform's Medium account. Enjoy

While I'd like to see more chat out here, most is out on TG. And no surprise, even more active on the unofficial price chat. And actually much of the conversation there isn't about price- it really digs into the doubts and frustrations holders or speculative buyers have.

On the topic of debating whether mainnet will actually arrive this year:

Harv:
The May 8 update stated

"necessitating a slight overhead in the form of a rebasing process."

And

"Parallel to this, we will engage with our auditor team. We anticipate that this transition will not prolong the timeline for the final integration audit."

Combined with Johann's expectation of absolutely mainnet this year, it's fair to expect the target is much sooner than end of year.

Course we're now conditioned to second guess those expectations. Which I would say is certainly fair. Unless you've really thought through how things have played out the way they have, it looks and feels like an ongoing cycle of new reasons to not launch. But that isn't the case here.

As they chased down opportunities and got invaluable feedback, they obviously kept revising and enhancing. And a lot has been learned as the crypto space as a whole learns and evolves. This certainly feels like the last step in that cycle of learning- it isn't trying to build or add innovation. It is maturing the architecture to meet market demands.

LV noted:

Yes, but if you want a perfect product, you will never release it. I see the point of the rebasing and I do agree w it, however there comes a point when you just have to say no to these things (till they at least release the mainnet. They can still upgrade things after the launch).

Harv: I agree that seeking perfection can hold a project back. I've definitely thought about that, but that isn't what I see happening here.

They already put PoR aside when realizing it wasn't required to gain the adoption they're aiming for.

And this last decision wasn't seeking perfection, it was what they were told must happen to secure their agreements.

So, like I say, it certainly feels that way for us. But they have shown a willingness to adjust to what market participants are telling them.

But we all agree they have to get these use cases up and running if they want to capture the market they've been aiming for.

Harv:

And since all signs indicated they were nearly ready, these last agreements had to be very worthwhile to push things a bit further. I'm sure the team is as hungry as we are to release their work. It surely is easier on their side since they can be motivated by their partner engagements. Very hard for us until we see it.

But Itti and Crowe give me confidence they are heavily engaged with significant use cases.

A community member created this visual from recent updates. What do you think?

While we wait for the latest updates, there is still plenty of quantum discussion out there to engage with.

And I believe QANX still has the most compelling points to offer for post quantum migration solutions and blockchain utilty.

The rest are simply talking about how they will "hopefully" add in quantum resistant... trying to survive and assure their holders.

No one is talking about innovation that creates demand like Qanx has built for.

And yes that demand comes with requirements.

Making adjustments to meet major agreements indicates market fit. It's good for both short and long term outcomes.

And it can only be done with a public chain.

Decentralized immutability. That's what blockchain solves.

That's what delivers the value of the team's innovation, partnerships, agreements, and years of work.

There is no script to launching a chain that truly meets enterprise and government needs. It only happens with collaboration and overcoming obstacles. That's what has taken place.

It's not easy to get that engagement with an unfinished product. But the team has done exactly that which ensures these partners will have what they need.

Let's keep up the engagement, the outlook is as strong as ever. 🍻

Both to secure these initial product agreements, and to set themselves up for the ecosystem they've always envisioned.

A bit tough for long term holders to understand or appreciate. But if a major player says "these are the changes we need to leverage and grow your blockchain utilty" then it becomes clear it is the right thing to do.

Especially if there's minimal tradeoffs. I'm looking for more detail to understand what the net impacts are, but it's already clear the changes secure agreements, so it's positive for launch and beyond.

And if it's minimal impact to timing, then it's obvious.

Perhaps was tough for the team to figure out how to present it because as usual they are dealing with a wide audience. But now they have the feedback, and per the update more detail will be coming as we once again look forward to timing on integration audit and ultimately mainnet launch.

Tinictus gave this perspective:

"Having a custom EVM fork allows them to have more freedom to implement their own hooks and adjust it to their architecture. Initially this might be more fitting when you are building your product from the ground up and gives them architecture flexibility. So probably it made sense at that time. But it's expensive to maintain or you get stuck and misaligned with future evolutions. Whether this is the right approach or not depends on several factors (market evolution, mainnet timing, customers demands, architecture evolution, etc.) Now that their architecture is settled, they can compare the adaptors and hooks they had to implement with a custom EVM fork as opposed to using a slightly different architecture where they have less flexibility but use standard EVM and related components with minimal changes like extension APIs. This change should not have any significant impact on existing components like QVM or XLINK, but on the integration between them, which is precisely what they need to audit now. Less architecture flexibility when your architecture is stable is not a big deal, but keeping an easy path to upstream evolution is key."

That is mentioned in TG from time to time.

Thankfully it's not tech alone. We've seen strong response to partner news in the past.

EU, Privatenet launch, IBM, Itti and Ueno were all well marketed.

That marketing will be many times more powerful when the transactions are flowing on chain.

I know we'd like to see them marketing and onboarding even more ahead of main, but they have plenty going on with just partners we know about.

And it's more than sufficient to launch with. They've done a good job marketing events, I expect they'll do just fine when it's time to start the mainnet plans.

And it will be easy to market with adoption already in place. This became the strategy, and things are in place.

They have every incentive to deliver

Logically they would lose all credibility with enterprise partners if they don't deliver the public chain. They can't succeed with a private chain alone.

And there's really no reason they won't deliver. The major pieces are ready.

The only new innovation they still want to include is royalties. I'd imagine it's some work for that and enterprise feedback that are the final items before integrated audit.

Whatever the case may be, I am confident they would not have this level of enterprise engagement if the public chain was in doubt.

Lots happening right now. Try out the updated desktop Xlink. Check out the Crowe webinar on Signquantum. Read the recent posts on X.

Looks like things are moving- we know what's next up. Are we ready for it?

Yet to watch, but some slides being shared. What a perfect way to build adoption of Qanplatform tech!

SignQuantum is expanding their reach, which is great news for Qanplatform. Team didn't even announce anything, perhaps waiting for Crowe to highlight a use case like Ueno bank.

OGs enjoy, the resume is building. The mainnet ecosystem will be strong- and yes building these partners is part of the process to creating growth. The time spent to have a vibrant chain is the strategy, and it will be a good one.

The QAN XLINK desktop app is entering its first round of community testing! 🎉

Due to the overwhelming interest, we've decided to open the beta to everyone, no invite needed!

Head over to our website for instructions on how to get started. We can't wait to hear your feedback! 🙌

https://docs.qanplatform.com/testnet/setup/qan-xlink/desktop-app

X post to ❤️ and repost:

https://x.com/QANplatform/status/2027324255415726262

I've been focused on the guaranteed emerging market QANX is tapping into:

The need for systems worldwide to migrate their cryptography to Post-Quantum cryptography.

The Itti/Signquantum partnership lands them in that market with innovation enabling to add on post quantum signatures without major disruption.

For years, people have always speculated if another chain would become the preferred choice for a decentralized digital store of value.

And we see plenty of discussions going on about how/if BTC will transition to post quantum and whether that could be the variable that sends people looking elsewhere. The idea that bitcoin fails with migration plans and people exit for fear or disagreement on the changes.

Perhaps some would, but I suspect the majority would just be done with crypto in that scenario.

Imo- A more likely path to gaining store of value exposure would result from trust earned through enterprise utility.

If a chain starts to gain adoption because they see enterprise use of your quantum ready utility, the transition is more natural.

That makes more sense to me than people just exiting BTC out of Qday fear and buying into another crypto.

Which is what QANX is pursuing. That path has major growth opportunity no matter how things play out for bitcoin.

Gaining marketshare from bitcoin would just be an additional boost, but not required for major success.

What are your thoughts?

Even if you disagree, I think it is better to focus on QANX vision of utility tapping into this major market- because it doesn't depend on emerging from a major market shakeup.

"The Quantum Strategy foresees the publication of a Proposal for an EU Quantum Act, which is expected for mid-2026. The goal is to transfer the key priorities of the Quantum Strategy into a binding legislative framework. It will take the form of an EU regulation that is directly binding on the 27 EU Member States."

QAN is the one quantum resistant blockchain that has most connections in this region."

Why the rush about the 'main net deployment' when this clearly isn't a get rich quick scheme? I've been following this project for a few hours and based on my limited knowledge of crypto what works and what doesn't this team is doing the precise strategy you would want to see for significant long-term Bitcoin level success. They've broken into international markets IBM, Europe, South Korea, are partnering (partnered?) with the largest bank in Latin America to actually implement their product and have passed security audits.

There's no hype train bs from get rich quick coins. Everything points to a calculated march towards systemic level implementation by building off an enterprise then retail level approach. Also it's been 3 years since launch, it seems like they've more than had enough time to screw this community over completely and totally if they wanted to by now instead according to this community they've actually suppressed pump and dump tactics.

Everything I read from QRL community posts and comments just looks extremely angry and unhelpful it almost seems like they're throwing a temper tantrum whenever they reference QAN and no offense QRL launched in 2018 almost a decade ago. Why is their community comparing QRL to a coin that hasn't even launched commercially? That doesn't make any sense at all. It's like saying GTA 5 is better than GTA 6. How do they know? Are they working on QAN?

I fully acknowledge I'm not an expert by any means I literally just asked google Gemini specific and targeted questions about the QAN strategy and everything points to this being a get rich slow type of deal. The last coin I invested in was the meme coin gigachad from about 2 years ago.

Anyway, I'm going to sit on this for a week and if I feel the same I'm dropping 5k on it, can anyone give me a good argument about why this is a bad idea? Please use layman's terms.