Physical properties of chemically synthesized semiconductor nanocrystal quantum dots (QDs) have been the subject of extensive research in the last two decades. Utilized as fluorescent labels, they demonstrate good photostability, high absorption cross sections, wide excitation spectra and narrow emission lines, which makes them an attractive alternative to organic fluorophores in a wide range of life science applications [1]. In addition, QDs can serve as tunable light absorbers and emitters in optoelectronic devices such as light-emitting diodes and QD sensitized solar cells. A general property of QDs is a fluorescence intermittency apparent in single dot emission, also known as blinking. It is observed as abrupt jumps from a strongly emitting state to episodes of darkness during which the emission intensity is heavily attenuated despite continuous laser excitation [2]. This is an intriguing phenomenon as it results in a clearly measurable manifestation of microscopic dynamical changes in a single nanocrystal. Blinking is of practical importance since it reduces the effective quantum yield of QDs. It also limits the utility of QDs in applications such as single particle tracking. The luminescence intensity fluctuations of blinking QDs occur on time scales which are immensely longer than the longest characteristic time normally associated with QD dynamics, a radiative lifetime of tens of nanoseconds [3]. Hence, they must be associated with“slow” variations of the microscopic state of the QD. Yet, despite the broad literature regarding the statistics of the blinking process, as well as its dependence on temperature, excitation wavelength and intensity, the detailed mechanism inducing this behavior is, surprisingly, still under debate. The vast majority of the existing theoretical models [4], as well as much of the existing experimental literature (including recent realizations of nonblinking QDs [5–9]), associate the ‘off’ periods with a long-lasting change in the charging state of the QD. This may be brought about by photoionization, as suggested originally by Efros and Rosen [10], or by trapping of an excited charge carrier in a long-lived surface trap. In either case, QDs in the ‘off’ state are essentially ionized and can, upon further photoexcitation, nonradiatively decay via Auger recombination. This is an intra-QD energy transfer interaction by which the excess energy from a recombination event is transferred to the spectator charge carrier rather than emitted as a photon [11]. In order to account for the observed power-law statistics of ‘off’ and ‘on’ times [3], several modifications of the Efros and Rosen formulation have been recently suggested. Thus, multiple traps with an exponential distribution of trapping and escape rates [12] or a fluctuating energy difference between the trap state and the excited 2