What else would you like to see on the Zano roadmap?
-
I'm curious to find out what else the community would like to see being focused on by the Zano team.
Please note that the core team works on improving the blockchain itself. Projects built on top of it are mostly done by others.
Roadmap link: https://zano.org/roadmap
-
Great thread! Here is my short prayer on the private Hyperliquid idea.
Hyperliquid is transparent. Zano is private. Let us merge them.
HF6 brings Gateway Addresses – exchanges can finally integrate.
Zarcanum gives private staking no one else has.
Confidential Assets hide everything: sender, amount, asset type.
Ionic Swaps execute trades atomically with zero visibility.
No front-running. No MEV. No whales hunting your liquidation.
Bridge native ZANO cross-chain via trustless Bridgeless.
Build a perps exchange where positions stay hidden.
Institutions trade size without revealing strategy.
Retail trades without getting eaten.
Who builds this? The Zano army does. Let us go.
-
@ren888yin Yes
-
The updated roadmap is ambitious, and the Zano Execution Layer could eventually add substantial utility to the ecosystem. My concern is not its potential value, but the order of priorities.
The published roadmap does not yet appear to reflect the recent change in the post-quantum planning environment. Following Majorana 2, Microsoft now aims to achieve a scalable quantum computer by 2029. Separately, Executive Order 14412 has made post-quantum migration a current United States engineering programme, with a federal pilot due by the end of 2027 and migration deadlines for high-value and high-impact systems in 2030 and 2031.
None of those dates proves that Ed25519 will be broken in 2029, 2030 or 2031. They do, however, show that waiting for a demonstrated cryptographically relevant quantum computer before beginning architectural preparation would be an unsafe strategy.
Zano also has a specific custody exposure that should be distinguished from address privacy. Each unspent output publishes a one-time public key P = xG. The permanent wallet address may remain hidden, but if elliptic-curve discrete logarithms became tractable, the corresponding one-time spending secret x could be recovered directly from the output. Zenith's shorter block times and faster confirmations do not remove that exposure.
I therefore believe that post-quantum custody and migration should become a core roadmap priority, particularly while HF7 and Zenith are still being prepared. The first objective need not be a complete post-quantum reconstruction of Zarcanum and Zenith. It should be a protected custody destination, probably beginning with a hybrid output requiring both classical and post-quantum authorization, together with wallet migration, backup and recovery support.
This may require postponing lower-priority expansion work where it competes for the same core developers, wallet engineers, cryptographic reviewers, testing capacity or hard-fork coordination. The Execution Layer is the clearest example: it may be valuable later, but it does not protect existing Zano outputs or prepare the base layer for cryptographic migration.
Projects developed by genuinely independent teams would not necessarily need to stop. The point is that base-layer custody and migration should take precedence wherever resources overlap.
This is not an argument against Zenith. On the contrary, Zenith may be the best opportunity to introduce the versioning, migration paths and architectural separation required for an orderly post-quantum transition.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login