A blockchain can have strong cryptography and still not control its own security timeline. That’s becoming more relevant as @Starknet looks at the possibility of becoming an independent L1. Starknet already has two real advantages: hash-based STARK proofs and programmable accounts that can switch signature schemes. But its security still isn’t fully its own. As an Ethereum L2 it relies on Ethereum for data availability and bridge infrastructure - the EIP-4844 blob path, for example, uses KZG commitments. Improving Starknet’s own cryptography doesn’t remove those dependencies. That context helps explain the L1 discussion. On October 22, 93.52% of voting power supported researching an independent Starknet L1. The vote authorized research, not a transition. Security autonomy is worth examining. Independence also brings new responsibilities around consensus, infrastructure, and governance. The real question is whether controlling more of the stack would actually produce a stronger long-term system after those trade-offs. If you’re looking at this, StarkWare’s migration register is a better starting point than treating L1 independence as an automatic security upgrade. It shows which components Starknet can change itself and which still depend on external systems. https://t.co/baW4UCzyIC