In recent years, the world has seen a number of unsettling cybersecurity threats, but none have been quite like what occurred last week. The new threat comes from a set of documents disclosed by OpenAI. The Economist referred to it as "the day of judgment for mathematics," while some simply call it "the end of mathematics" (The Mathpocalypse). This is not just media sensationalism. In the view of a renowned cybersecurity expert at Johns Hopkins University, "we may lose public key cryptography." This is no small matter.

So what exactly happened? First of all, it's important to know that the relevant OpenAI files do not describe some terrifying new type of global computer invasion. On the contrary, they contain solutions to hundreds of mathematical problems that have puzzled top mathematicians for decades. Moreover, contrary to what some reports claim, this "mathematical extravaganza" represented by OpenAI will not accelerate the arrival of so-called Q-day – the day when quantum computing breaks through mainstream encryption algorithms.

The real reason why these OpenAI files have caused such a stir is that they seem to indicate the emergence of a completely new species of “mathematical supergeniuses” – individuals with abilities that might be sufficient to identify vulnerabilities in the algorithms used to encrypt bank passwords, email accounts, and our entire digital lives. For years, these algorithms have been a part of our daily lives and have long been considered reliable by top cryptographers. They may still be able to hold up for many more years. However, if there indeed are flaws in these algorithms, then sooner or later someone will use powerful new AI mathematical tools to uncover them, which could potentially cause serious damage to the global financial system.

As expected, the crypto community, which is always highly vigilant about risk issues, is at the forefront of discussions on how to cope with a "mathematical apocalypse." Some have mentioned that the so-called ECDSA (elliptic curve digital signature algorithm) protocol may soon be cracked. Based on this, a Bitcoin researcher suggested that crypto asset holders should "calmly begin planning for a 'bunker mode' and transfer their funds to new secret addresses."

Other encryption experts responded that taking such measures now would be too radical, but this panic impulse is not difficult to understand. Although the “mathematical doomsday” threat targets banks and various financial institutions, most of these companies are still capable of reversing related transactions after facing attacks launched by hackers like AI. However, in the world of cryptography, the situation is different: blockchain transactions are generally considered irreversible, which likely makes mainstream currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum primary targets.

There is one more point worth noting: if some super villain with the identifier AI really discovers a vulnerability in the algorithms that protect the blockchain, we are likely not to be aware of it immediately. As TBPN pointed out, there are game theory factors at play here: if the bad guys possess deadly hacking techniques, launching a large-scale theft would likely destroy the value of the encrypted assets themselves, which would not be worthwhile for them. A more rational approach would be to carry out a series of smaller, more concealed thefts, in order not to expose their tactics too early.

So what will happen next? First of all, somewhat reassuringly, the news of a “mathematical doomsday” has hardly caused any stir in the markets – this indicates that leaders in the crypto and financial industries still have some time to think about what to do next. So far, one of the more interesting ideas – aside from hiding Bitcoin and taking refuge in bunkers – comes from Haseeb Qureshi of Dragonfly. He published a blog post titled “Against the Doomsday of Cryptography.” In it, Qureshi believes that there is a 95% chance that “everything will be completely fine,” but he also states that blockchains must improve their governance capabilities, and at this stage, speed should be given priority over the “purity” of decentralization. He further calls for blockchains to introduce updates that would mandate the use of a signature system that creates a bulky but traceable copy of each transaction, to ensure that the chain can survive even after a large-scale purge resulting from a type of dark lord attack similar to those described by AI.

I don't know if this is feasible, or even if it's a good idea. But I do appreciate this push for action, as well as the lively discussions surrounding how to strengthen our encryption systems to withstand powerful AI-driven attacks. This is the best side of the crypto industry: a group of smart people at the forefront of technology trying to solve tough problems. When the broader financial world truly realizes this threat, don't be surprised if they turn to the blockchain field in search of solutions.

Jeff John Roberts

jeff.roberts @ fortune.com

@ jeffjohnroberts