[Starknet’s Security Approach: Locks Must Be Strong—and Replaceable] When discussing quantum threats, I’m less interested in who claims “absolute security” and more concerned about whether the system can adapt in time, now that today’s cryptography is becoming inadequate. Starknet’s concept of “cryptographic agility” breaks down into two key points: 1. STARK proofs verify “whether the computation was performed correctly.” Built on hashing, they do not rely on the hardness assumptions of common elliptic curve cryptography—this forms the foundation of the proof layer’s resilience against quantum threats. 2. Signatures verify “who is authorized to act.” Starknet’s native account abstraction turns accounts into programmable smart contracts, enabling new signature verification methods without requiring a full network hard fork. It’s like changing a lock—you don’t need to tear down the whole building. But being able to change the lock doesn’t mean all residents have done so yet. As of October 20, 2026, official documentation records a mainnet demonstration of Falcon-512 post-quantum signature accounts—but a demonstration is not widespread adoption. Wallet compatibility, key management, auditing, and migration of legacy accounts remain distinct, ongoing challenges. Moreover, as an Ethereum L2, Starknet cannot focus solely on itself. Blob data availability relies on KZG, and bridging and messaging depend on Ethereum-side infrastructure—so the pace of migration isn’t entirely under its control. My view: Whether the breakthrough comes from quantum computing or potential AI-assisted mathematical research, we shouldn’t bet on guessing timelines. What truly matters is identifying what’s already live, what’s still in research, and whether migration can be completed when risks evolve. This is preparing for quantum threats—not declaring the entire network fully quantum-safe. @Starknet