NACK. Forcing migration at the consensus layer is too heavy-handed, especially given the likely tradeoffs in cost, efficiency, and usability of PQ schemes. Bitcoin has historically relied on voluntary adoption, wallet defaults, and fee incentives rather than protocol-level coercion. That approach should be exhausted first. The quantum threat remains theoretical, and the economics of such an attack make it unlikely to target the vast majority of users, particularly smaller UTXOs that would fall below the cost threshold of exploitation. Introducing hard deadlines and invalidating legacy signatures risks unnecessary disruption and sets a precedent for protocol-enforced fund restrictions that Bitcoin has largely avoided.