Imagine having funds in your wallet, positions across different DeFi protocols and years of transaction history. Now imagine being told that the cryptography protecting your account needs to be replaced. Would you really want to create another wallet, transfer everything and reconnect all your applications just to stay secure? I've been going through @Starknet 's cryptographic agility research and this is the kind of problem I think deserves more discussion. --> Changing security without starting over Starknet uses native account abstraction, meaning accounts are programmable smart contracts. Instead of relying on one fixed signature verification method, developers can introduce different ways for accounts to authorize transactions. This means compatible accounts can adopt new cryptography without requiring a network-wide upgrade. For users, that could eventually mean upgrading their account security while keeping the same address and funds. I find that much more practical than expecting everyone to migrate at the same time. --> There's already something concrete to look at On October 25, a developer shared an experimental migration tested on Starknet Sepolia. The demonstration covered 11 wallet contract classes, including Argent, Braavos and OpenZeppelin implementations. Existing test accounts were upgraded to use hybrid ECDSA and Falcon-512 signatures while keeping their addresses and funds. After migration, transactions required both signatures, and the old ECDSA-only authorization path was rejected. That's an important detail. Replacing a security method isn't enough if the old, potentially vulnerable method can still be used. The implementation hasn't been audited and remains testnet-only, so it's not a finished wallet upgrade for everyone. Still, I appreciate seeing developers work through the actual migration process. --> What about @Starknet 's underlying security? STARK proofs and account signatures serve different purposes. Hash-based STARK proofs verify that computation was performed correctly, while account signatures determine who can authorize transactions. Because these components are separate, changing account signature verification doesn't require replacing the entire proving system. The StarkWare Quantum Hub also evaluates eight aspects of cryptographic agility. In its October 15, 2026 assessment, Starknet had public evidence supporting all eight capabilities within the checklist's defined scope. That doesn't mean the network is completely quantum-resistant. Existing accounts still need migration and Starknet continues to depend on Ethereum for important components, including its bridge and data availability. Those dependencies have their own security requirements and upgrade timelines. --> My thoughts I don't think preparing for quantum threats should mean waiting until a vulnerability becomes an emergency. Nobody knows exactly what advances in quantum computing or AI-assisted mathematics might reveal. But we can already work on making security upgrades less complicated for the people who actually use these networks. I'd like to see wallet developers make these migrations easier, especially when it comes to key recovery, compatibility and preventing users from accidentally falling back to weaker security. Having the technology is one thing. Making it safe and practical for ordinary users is another. That's the part of @Starknet 's work I'll be keeping an eye on. Research and methodology: https://t.co/bUHhv9TxJF Quantum Hub: https://t.co/veMp2WwDeT #Starknet #PostQuantum