“Migrate later” is not a stablecoin plan. It is a liquidity fracture event.
This episode explains why post-quantum (PQ) is a coordination race, why Ethereum targets PQ upgrades by 2029 (as stated in the transcript you shared), and why stablecoins must be PQ-native day one to avoid a forced perimeter migration under stress.

Dariia answers issuer-grade questions from Parthh. The episode is grounded in the transcript you provided featuring Justin Drake and Chris Peikert (hosted by Laura Shin), including their most issuer-relevant points: systemic cryptographic risk, timeline uncertainty, quiet attack dynamics, and the throughput cliff created by PQ signature size.

Key takeaways (facts + issuer translation)

What quantum breaks (systemic): elliptic-curve cryptography used across transaction signing and other chain layers.

Timelines are uncertain, migration is not: multi-year upgrades must start before certainty arrives.

Ethereum’s stated roadmap target: PQ upgrades by 2029 (per the transcript you shared).

Quiet attacks are real: keys can be derived privately once public keys are exposed, then funds move suddenly.

The PQ throughput cliff: signatures go from ECDSA ~64 bytes to Falcon-class ~666 bytes (as discussed). If blockspace is scarce, throughput can drop by ~10x without redesign.

Stablecoin horror scenario: rushed perimeter migrations split integrations across exchanges, custodians, and payment rails. Deposits/withdrawals pause, liquidity fragments, and “rail reliability” becomes a solvency narrative.

Issuer wedge: PQ-native day one increases acceptance and distribution because it removes the future “emergency migration” overhang.

Post-quantum security is no longer a theory.
It is becoming a forced migration problem for over $3 trillion in crypto assets.

In this episode, we break down why post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is not a drop-in upgrade, and how signature size and verification cost quietly destroy TPS, liquidity, and decentralization when implemented incorrectly.

Most “just upgrade signatures” narratives ignore the core constraint:
PQC imposes a throughput tax.

At scale, this shows up as:
Slower execution
Higher validator hardware costs
Wider spreads and worse liquidity
Collateral haircuts and higher margin
Forced asset migration

Guest Mansi Birla: Legal and regulatory expert who converts Senate bill language into concrete compliance outcomes, risk boundaries, and what teams must change in architecture and go-to-market.

If you hold stablecoins, trade DeFi, or care about tokenized stocks, this is the highest-stakes U.S. crypto fight of 2026.
Coinbase pulled support. Banks show 3,200+ signatures to ban rewards. A “day-one commodity” clause could split crypto into two tiers overnight.

In this 20-minute, crypto-wide legal breakdown, Mansi (Crypto Legal Expert) explains what the Senate “crypto market structure” draft is trying to do, why Coinbase says it is worse than the status quo, and how the most controversial provisions could reshape stablecoin yield, DeFi compliance, tokenized equities, and token classification.

This episode is not “pro-Coinbase.” It is about what happens to users, builders, exchanges, and protocols if Congress hard-codes the wrong defaults.

What we cover (high-signal, no fluff)

Coinbase walks back support: the concrete deal-breakers, in plain English

Stablecoin yield ban mechanics: “interest for holding” vs activity-based incentives

Bank lobbying pressure: the 3,200+ banks number and what it signals politically

DeFi compliance perimeter: the “control person” and KYC/AML chess match

Tokenized equities: why the draft can function like a practical freeze on crypto rails

Amendment flood risk: why one late change can flip entire product categories overnight

“Day-one commodities”: why ETP/ETF status can create a fast lane for some tokens and a slow lane for everyone else

Forward scenarios: compromise pass, slip, or “bad clarity” that exports innovation offshore

Minting new dollars onchain is now a post-quantum decision.

If you mint on legacy signatures, you are not minting an asset. You are minting a liability with embedded cryptographic debt. Because once that dollar is widely distributed across exchanges, wallets, custody, and DeFi, there is no clean “exit” from a forced, ecosystem-wide migration later.

This is not a theory shift. It is a posture shift.
In the last 6 months:

The G7 published a coordinated post-quantum cryptography roadmap for the financial sector.

The internet is already migrating at scale. Cloudflare reports 52% of human web traffic is post-quantum encrypted.

Stablecoins are already monetary rails at global scale: $33T in transaction volume in 2025 (Artemis, reported).

Tokenized U.S. Treasuries are already a real onchain category at around $10B.

The trap most teams miss:
Post-quantum signatures impose two taxes.

Throughput tax: larger signatures and heavier verification reduce bandwidth and throughput.

Coordination tax: upgrading a live ecosystem is multi-year, fragmented, and failure-prone.

Issuer nightmare in one sentence:
Imagine a $5B stablecoin across 12 chains and 40+ venues, then a forced signature migration under stress. That is a depeg event waiting to happen.

The rule:
Mint right once. Mint PQ-native.