Ethereum’s “Walkaway Test”: Why Quantum Readiness Matters

What is the “walkaway test?”

Vitalik Buterin’s “walkaway test” is a way to assess Ethereum’s long-term credibility. The network is intended to remain secure and functional even if its core developers were to stop actively upgrading it.

In a recent analogy, Buterin suggested that a protocol should resemble a tool you own, such as a hammer, rather than a service that gradually degrades if the “vendor” loses interest or becomes constrained by external pressures.

The end state he points to is an Ethereum that could “ossify if we want to,” where its value proposition does not depend on promised features that have yet to be delivered.

In the same post, Buterin outlines a detailed checklist of “boxes” Ethereum needs to tick to make ossification a more plausible long-term option:

• Full quantum resistance (the focus of this article)

• A scalability architecture capable of expanding to thousands of transactions per second (TPS), such as zero-knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machine validation combined with PeerDAS, with additional scaling achieved through parameter changes

• A state architecture designed to last for decades, including partial statelessness, state expiry and future-proof storage structures

• A general-purpose account model, often described as full account abstraction, moving away from the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)

• A gas schedule hardened against denial-of-service risks, covering both execution and zero-knowledge proving

• Proof-of-stake economics structured to remain decentralized over the long term, while keeping Ether (ETH) useful as trustless collateral

• Block-building mechanisms that resist centralization and preserve censorship resistance under adverse future conditions.

What the walkaway test is measuring

Buterin’s walkaway test is simple. Can Ethereum continue delivering its core promise as a platform for trustless and trust-minimized applications without relying primarily on ongoing, high-stakes protocol changes to remain viable?

In his framing, the protocol should eventually function more like a tool than a service. Once the “base” is done, Ethereum should be able to “ossify if we want to,” with most progress coming from client optimizations and safer parameter tuning rather than repeated redesigns.

This is why he draws a clear line between features that already exist and those that are still only promised. The goal, as he put it, is to reach a point where Ethereum’s value proposition “does not strictly depend on any features that are not in the protocol already.”

Did you know? Protocol ossification is a term from network engineering. As a protocol becomes widely adopted, coordinating meaningful changes becomes harder, and its evolution naturally slows, often because the surrounding ecosystem grows heavier and more difficult to move.

Why quantum changes the risk model

When people talk about quantum risk, the key uncertainty is timing. Even the NIST emphasizes that it is not possible to predict exactly when, or even if, quantum computers will be able to break today’s widely used public-key cryptography at scale.

The reason quantum risk still appears in long-horizon security planning is that cryptographic transitions are typically slow. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) notes that moving from a standardized algorithm to broad real-world deployment can take 10-20 years, as products and infrastructure must be redesigned and rolled out.

There is also a separate risk that does not depend on a near-term breakthrough: the “harvest now, decrypt later” model, in which encrypted data is collected today in case it becomes readable in the future.

That risk is why many standards bodies have begun moving from research toward implementation, with the NIST finalizing its first set of post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024 and explicitly encouraging early transition efforts.

Did you know? The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) now treats post-quantum cryptography migration as a deadline-driven project. Its guidance sets clear milestones: 2028 for discovery and planning, 2031 for priority migration and 2035 for complete migration.

What “quantum readiness” means for Ether in practice

For Ethereum, quantum readiness is about whether the network can migrate away from today’s signature assumptions without breaking usability.

In the walkaway test thread, Buterin explicitly lists full quantum resistance as a goal and links it to the need for a more general-purpose account model for signature validation.

That is where account abstraction comes in. Rather than Ethereum being locked to a single signature algorithm indefinitely, a more flexible account model can allow accounts to validate transactions using different rules. In theory, this enables a gradual adoption of post-quantum signatures without forcing a single “flag day” migration across the network.

Research discussions have explored what it might look like to use post-quantum schemes such as Falcon for Ethereum-style transaction signatures, along with the practical trade-offs involved, including added complexity and performance costs.

Crucially, this work remains ongoing. Ethereum’s roadmap includes quantum-resistance efforts, often grouped under the Splurge, but no solution has been fully rolled out yet.

Did you know? Account abstraction is already live at scale on mainnet. Ethereum.org notes that the Ethereum Improvement Proposal 4337 EntryPoint contract was deployed on March 1, 2023, and, as of its October 2025 update, has enabled more than 26 million smart wallets and over 170 million UserOperations.

A protocol-surface problem for Ethereum

A more technical way to view the walkaway test is to ask whether Ethereum can change its cryptographic primitives without relying on emergency coordination.

Today, Ethereum has multiple signature surfaces. User transactions from externally owned accounts rely on recoverable ECDSA over secp256k1 at the execution layer, while proof-of-stake validators use BLS12-381 keys and signatures at the consensus layer.

In practice, post-quantum migration would likely involve:

• Introducing and standardizing new verification paths

• Enabling safe key and signature scheme rotation for both accounts and validators

• Doing so without breaking the user experience assumptions that wallets and infrastructure rely on.

Again, account abstraction is central to making signature validation more flexible, such as by delegating validation logic. It can make cryptographic agility less dependent on one-off rescue upgrades.

Designing for long-term Ethereum resilience

Buterin’s walkaway test is ultimately a demand for credibility. Ethereum should aim for a state where it could “ossify if we want to,” and where its value proposition does not depend on features that are not already part of the protocol.

Quantum readiness fits within this frame because it is a long-transition problem, not a switch that can simply be flipped. The NIST has explicitly treated post-quantum migration as something organizations should begin preparing for early, even amid uncertainty about exact timelines.

The broader question is whether Ethereum can evolve its security assumptions without becoming a system that only works if a small group continually steps in to rescue it.