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.

You get:
- Composability for free: once morphisms are secure, any string diagram built from them is secure by functoriality.
- Unified classical/quantum view: same graphical language covers AES-based MPC and entanglement-based QKD.
- Abstraction from machines: you reason at the algebraic level. concrete PPT machines enter only when you instantiate objects.
- Tooling potential: rewriting systems for string diagrams can automate large chunks of laborious proofs.