Guest Post by Ludovico Rossi, Co-Founder and CRO at Brickken
The conversation on Wall Street has moved from whether to tokenise to how and banks, asset managers and financial institutions are testing tokenisation to improve settlement, simplify asset administration and make capital markets more efficient. I believe we’re still early in understanding the commercial potential of this transition, particularly as traditional financial assets become easier to issue, manage and transfer through digital infrastructure.
Quantum computing sits on the same horizon. It could eventually reshape financial modelling and portfolio optimisation, and it puts a hard question to anyone designing infrastructure meant to operate for decades: how long do today’s cryptographic assumptions hold? For an industry built around trust, ownership and the reliable transfer of value, that question deserves attention long before quantum computing reaches widespread commercial adoption.
What I find encouraging is that institutions now treat tokenisation as a practical infrastructure decision. At Brickken, our work with businesses bringing real-world assets on-chain shows what they actually ask for: lower administrative costs, instant settlements, simpler compliance and efficient management across the asset lifecycle. Those priorities follow from how expensive financial infrastructure is to run, with its intermediaries, fragmented records and reconciliation processes. Tokenisation can consolidate parts of that stack through programmable assets and shared transaction records. The benefits depend on the asset class, regulatory environment and systems involved, but the opportunity to improve financial administration is substantial.
I expect institutional adoption to expand where blockchain infrastructure delivers measurable operational and financial benefits. The long-term value of those systems will depend on their ability to absorb technological change.
Today’s blockchain infrastructure rests on cryptography that secures transactions, verifies ownership and establishes trust between participants, under computational assumptions that quantum computing could eventually change. A sufficiently capable fault-tolerant quantum computer could undermine widely used public-key algorithms, including the digital signature schemes that underpin blockchain transactions. Building one remains technically hard, and it is unclear when it might become practical. A March 2026 whitepaper by Google Quantum AI researchers and co-authors estimates that a machine of fewer than half a million physical qubits could run the attack on the elliptic curve signatures behind accounts like Ethereum’s in minutes, under stated hardware assumptions.
For assets expected to remain relevant for decades, the on-chain exposure is one of authority rather than confidentiality. A signature scheme does not hide data, so the risk sits in public keys that accounts reveal when they transact and in the administrative keys that control minting, burning and transfer permissions of a tokenised asset. A tokenised security may represent an ownership interest that outlives the technology used to issue it, so institutions need confidence that the systems governing ownership, transfer permissions and transaction authorisation can be updated without compromising existing obligations.
I expect quantum readiness to become an important consideration in institutional technology assessments, particularly where infrastructure supports long-term asset ownership and regulated transactions. The G7 Cyber Expert Group published a coordinated post-quantum roadmap for the financial sector in January 2026, and NIST’s draft IR 8547 proposes disallowing ECDSA after 2035.
The discipline that follows is cryptographic agility, the ability to update cryptographic mechanisms as security requirements change. The G7 roadmap itself pairs migration to quantum-resistant cryptography with a transition to cryptographic agility. Financial institutions already treat technology upgrades, regulatory changes and evolving security standards as routine, and blockchain infrastructure should be held to the same standard. That means mapping where cryptographic dependencies exist, how transaction authorisation can be updated and what must change across custody arrangements, wallets and smart contracts.
Interoperability raises the stakes. As tokenised assets move between platforms, custodians and institutions, security and compliance standards must stay consistent, and any upgrade has to account for every system an asset depends on.
This is where my experience at Brickken points. The commercial value of tokenisation lies in making sophisticated technology practical: infrastructure that integrates with existing processes, supports regulatory requirements and evolves without unnecessary operational disruption. Quantum readiness belongs to that responsibility.
I’m also optimistic about the longer-term opportunities quantum computing presents for financial services. Portfolio optimisation, complex risk modelling and certain financial simulations could eventually benefit from quantum approaches, provided they demonstrate advantages over classical alternatives. Combined with AI and programmable financial infrastructure, they could support new approaches to asset management, capital allocation and transaction processing. Much work remains: hardware must improve, algorithms must show reliable advantages and institutions will require evidence of economic value. As markets become more programmable, the ability to integrate specialised computing may open new possibilities for institutions and technology providers.
I believe tokenisation will play an important role as institutions modernise asset administration, improve settlement and expand access to investment opportunities. Quantum computing could contribute, provided the industry prepares for its commercial potential and its security implications. Decisions made today on cryptographic adaptability, interoperability and operational resilience will determine how well institutions absorb what comes next. I see the most value in infrastructure that delivers practical benefits today while keeping the flexibility for tomorrow’s advances, and I expect businesses that approach this transition with technical discipline, strong governance and a clear understanding of commercial requirements to play a substantial role in shaping the next era of capital markets.
Readers looking to learn more about quantum security can explore the following pieces on post-quantum security:
