This post, and similar framings (such as the blockchain trilemma originally formulated by @VitalikButerin) demonstrate that for many cryptographic applications, there is no "one size fits all" solution. Standards are obviously important for portability and interoperability. But the most durable standards emerge organically over time based on adoption, vs. being dictated from some ivory tower on high. We see this in the ZK landscape, where standards diverged naturally into a spectrum of recursive zkVMs and lightweight provers based on specific scaling needs. For post-quantum cryptography specifically, I applaud the great corpus of PQ algorithms that were a result of the @NIST standardization effort. But the initial standards were not really designed with the unique requirements of blockchains in mind. We shouldn't expect, not even want, a "one-size-fits-all" solution, at least not in the short term. Because it is the application that ultimately defines the standard; by forcing schemes to compete across different points of the trilemma, we ensure that the most efficient tools are built for the specific architectures they serve.