93.52% of voting power backed research into turning @Starknet into an independent L1. the vote was non-binding. ~3,200 votes, starkware abstained. any actual migration needs a second, binding vote. the real question isn’t L1 vs L2. it’s who controls the clock when the threat model changes. starknet’s STARK proofs are hash-based, so they’re already quantum-resistant. the weak points sit on ethereum: the bridge and data availability. as an L2, starknet can’t fix those faster than ethereum does. the timelines: + starknet targets full post-quantum security in 2027 + ethereum foundation roadmap says dec 2029 + justin drake at devcon 8 said he “hopes” for dec 2028, not official yet ➜ going L1 buys starknet a 1-2 year lead, if both targets hold what it costs: + security budget: no more renting ethereum’s validators. starknet needs its own consensus, secured by STRK value + liquidity: capital and dapps stay partly because withdrawals settle on ethereum + build time: a new L1 is extra engineering, and no launch date exists yet before a whitepaper, starknet needs clear answers on: + how bridged funds and cross-chain dapps move without breaking UX + whether a STRK-secured validator set can get close to ethereum’s economic security imo the trade-off is measurable. if the quantum protection gained before 2028-29 outweighs the security lost by leaving ethereum, migration makes sense. if not, it’s a 1-2 year head start paid for with a weaker base layer. post-quantum status and roadmap: https://t.co/VH7tt7ghNy