The more I explore @Starknet , the more I think quantum readiness is really a question of how safely a blockchain can adapt. What caught my attention is that Starknet approaches security at two different layers. Its STARK proofs use hash based cryptography to verify computation, while native account abstraction makes each account a programmable smart contract. That second part matters more than it might seem. An account can adopt a different signature verification method without requiring the entire network to upgrade. The account can evolve independently, although existing wallets do not become quantum resistant automatically. But there is another dependency worth watching. As an Ethereum L2, Starknet still relies on Ethereum for parts of its security and data availability infrastructure. Even if Starknet can adapt its own cryptography, some changes depend on Ethereum’s decisions and migration timeline. That is why I find the independent L1 research interesting. It raises a practical question about how much control Starknet should have over its own security roadmap, not a claim that moving away from Ethereum is already decided. My takeaway is simple: preparing for quantum threats means building flexibility today, being honest about what is still experimental, and having a safe migration path when cryptographic standards change. I would rather see a system designed to adapt than one that assumes today’s security choices will always be enough. Explore the roadmap and research here: https://t.co/A5MiaKoy3t