I wonder if you could recast cryptography in categorical language:

Instead of “groups, rings and fields + probabilistic Turing machines”, you work with objects that stand for resources (channels, keys, random beacons, OT-boxes, etc.) and morphisms that stand for protocols transforming those resources.

Tricks with polynomials and Riemann-Roch spaces. Breaking into the platonic realm to pillage forbidden abstractions. Starknet grantee.

Sequential and parallel composition of protocols are captured by the two compositions in a symmetric monoidal category.  Security is phrased as the existence of a simulator that makes a real-world diagram commute with an ideal-world one, so that “anything an adversary can do here, it could also do there”.

you still need to build ciphers though. Meaning you will still rely on discrete-log, lattices, etc but it could give you a very high-level, diagrammatic way to specify and compose protocols—classical or quantum—without getting stuck in low-level machine models.