I don't have a good sense of what to point to as the "mechanism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice-based_cryptography#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wik

I don't have a good sense of what to point to as the "mechanism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice-based_cryptography#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice-based_cryptography#His... 2005 (LWE), 2012 (LWE for key exchange), earlier (1990s for lattice math in general), 2017 (Kyber submission), later (competition modifications to Kyber)? I can see where one could see the mathematics as moderately mature (comparable in age to ECC, but maybe less intensively studied?). As above, I don't know quite how to think about whether the "thing" here is properly "lattices", "LWE", "LWE-KEX", "Kyber", or "the parameters and instantiation of Kyber from the NIST PQ competition". Depending where we focus our attention there, I suppose this gives us some timeframe from the 1980s (published studies of computational complexity of lattice-related algorithms) to "August 2024" (adoptions of NIST PQ FIPS documents). Edit: The other contextual thing that freaks out DJB, for those who might not be familiar, is that one of the proposed standards NIST was considering, SIKE, made it all the way through to the final (fourth) round of consideration, whereupon it was completely broken by a couple of researchers bringing to bear mathematical insight. Now SIKE had a very different architecture than the other proposals in the fourth round, so it seems like a portion of the debate is whether the undetected mathematical problems in SIKE are symptomatic of "the NIST competition came extraordinarily close to approving something that was totally broken, so maybe it wasn't actually that great at evaluating candidate algorithms, or at least maybe the mathematics community's understanding of post-quantum key exchange algorithms is still immature" or more symptomatic of "SIKE had such a weird and distinctive architecture that it was hard to understand or analyze, or hard to motivate relevant experts to understand or analyze it, unlike other candidate algorithms that were and are much better understood". It seems like DJB is saying the former and you're saying the latter.