🚨 Scaling isn’t the only thing on Starknet’s agenda… The network is also exploring how to remain secure against quantum computers. But the issue isn’t as simple as “quantum computers are coming, all crypto is over.” Let’s break it down step by step 👇 🔹 STEP 1: STARK PROOFS STARK proofs base their security on hash functions, not elliptic curve signatures. The Shor algorithm, associated with quantum computers, can threaten elliptic curve-based cryptography widely used in today’s blockchains. The Grover algorithm, known for targeting hash functions, works differently: it can accelerate searches, but this threat can be mitigated by using larger hash outputs to add a security margin. 📌 This may give Starknet’s proof layer an architectural advantage. However, this does not mean every component of the network is currently fully quantum-safe. 🔹 STEP 2: SMART ACCOUNTS AND SIGNATURE SWITCHING On Starknet, every user account is a smart contract. This means the method by which a transaction is signed can be defined directly within the account’s own code. What does this mean? 👀 In traditional account models, the signature scheme is often hardcoded into the protocol. Changing it typically requires a network-wide upgrade and coordinated user migration. On @Starknet, however, an account can update its verification logic to adopt a new signature scheme—potentially doing so without a network-wide hard fork, while preserving the same address and balance. 🧪 Research and experimental implementations using post-quantum signature schemes like Falcon-512 have already been demonstrated on Starknet. Still, we shouldn’t treat these systems as ready-to-deploy, universally mandatory standards just yet. Cost, performance, and security audits remain critical considerations. 🔹 STEP 3: LAYERS DEPENDENT ON ETHEREUM Starknet currently operates as an L2 on top of Ethereum. While it can update its own accounts and proof systems, certain components—such as bridges and data availability—remain dependent on Ethereum. This means that improving Starknet’s internally controlled components doesn’t automatically resolve all dependencies. The cryptographic timeline of Ethereum-dependent layers is also a crucial part of this research. 🔹 STEP 4: WHAT DOES THE L1 VOTE MEAN? 93.52% of STRK token holders voted in favor of exploring an independent L1 option. ⚠️ Key clarification: This result does NOT mean “Starknet is becoming an L1.” What is currently supported is the initiation of research. Technical requirements, security implications, user and developer experience, relationships with Ethereum, and transition costs will all be evaluated. A binding governance decision on whether to transition to an L1 would come only after this research phase. 💭 In my view, what truly matters is how Starknet translates this architectural flexibility into real user security and a practical, executable transition plan. Because quantum security isn’t just about picking a new signature algorithm—it requires holistically considering accounts, verifiers, bridges, data layers, and user migration together. Do you think Starknet’s exploration of an independent L1 option is the right move—or would it be smarter to wait for Ethereum to become quantum-safe? 👇