Don’t just hear “post-quantum resistance”—what truly determines whether a chain can survive the future is whether it can swap cryptographic algorithms without requiring a hard fork or forcing the entire network to migrate. StarkWare rates itself: @Starknet is currently the only one to score 8/8. Others are roughly: Bitcoin: 7/8—changing signatures requires changing addresses Ethereum: 3/8—ECDSA is hardcoded into the protocol Solana: 2/8—native accounts are locked in Starknet scores a perfect 8/8 for two reasons: First, STARK proofs rely on hashing, not elliptic curves. The proof layer itself doesn’t need to be rebuilt for quantum threats. L2s using SNARKs build their proof layers on elliptic curves—they’ll need to be completely reengineered when quantum arrives. Second, native account abstraction: every account is a contract. You can swap signature verification using replace_class—without changing addresses or moving funds. OpenZeppelin has already executed transactions on mainnet using Falcon-512. Users decide when to upgrade—no need to wait for a network-wide hard fork or move funds to new addresses. Other chains largely have signature schemes hardcoded at the protocol level; changing them requires a hard fork and full network coordination—the friction is orders of magnitude higher. Thus, @Starknet’s migration happens at the account level, with user-controlled timing, while most other chains require synchronized network-wide upgrades with time-window risks. @Starknet