One thing I find interesting about @Starknet is that security upgrades don’t always have to mean changing the entire network. Think about your phone. If one app needs a new security method, you wouldn’t want to replace the whole operating system just to make that change. Blockchains face a similar challenge. Starknet’s programmable accounts let developers introduce new signature-verification methods at the account level, without requiring a network-wide upgrade just to change how accounts authenticate transactions. That flexibility matters because security requirements don’t stay the same forever. Networks need practical ways to adapt when existing assumptions stop being enough. But there’s another side to this. As an Ethereum L2, Starknet still depends on parts of Ethereum’s wider security architecture. Exploring an independent L1 could give Starknet more control over its core security upgrades and how quickly they happen. For me, the interesting question isn’t which architecture sounds more advanced. It’s how much freedom a network has to adapt when its security needs change. That’s what makes Starknet’s cryptographic agility worth paying attention to. Technical reference: https://t.co/9Fs3OTPKH6