The strongest case for a Starknet L1 is control over when security upgrades happen. A team can have replacement cryptography ready and still depend on another network to finish the job. @Starknet Quantum Hub shows where that happens: its normal blob data path uses Ethereum’s KZG commitments. Calldata offers a fallback, but bridge and messaging dependencies remain tied to Ethereum’s migration. For builders, that means their security roadmap includes decisions they don’t control. Hash-based STARK proofs and programmable accounts help Starknet adapt within its own stack. Exploring an independent L1 asks whether it should control more of that stack. I think that research is worth doing. But autonomy comes with responsibility: any proposal needs to explain how it would secure the functions Ethereum currently provides. That’s the test I’d apply: which dependencies disappear, what replaces them, and can users migrate safely? Starknet is preparing for quantum threats. Independence remains under exploration. Source: Quantum Hub and governance discussion, reviewed Oct 23, 2026. https://t.co/VIrUk0ToqH