Even when a layer-2 network controls its own proof system and account model, it may still inherit cryptographic assumptions from the layer that settles its proofs and stores its data. Data availability is often provided by blobs and the bridge messaging layer may rely on specific elliptic-curve precompiles. Those components will become post-quantum only when the settlement layer itself completes its migration. Until then, a rollup’s end-to-end security cannot exceed the security of its settlement layer for the properties that depend on that layer. @Starknet published roadmap explicitly separates work that is under its own control such as hash replacements, account-level signature upgrades, and migration tooling from work that depends on the settlement layer. The recent non-binding governance discussion about researching an independent layer-1 path is one way of examining whether removing that dependency is desirable. An independent chain could set its own timeline for consensus signatures, data availability, and bridge design, but it would also forgo the existing security and liquidity relationships that come with settlement on another chain. The trade-off is therefore not purely technical; it involves assumptions about relative migration speeds, bridge risk, and ecosystem effects. Documenting the dependency clearly, rather than claiming full independence prematurely, is itself a form of cryptographic transparency. Users and builders can then evaluate how much residual exposure remains and whether additional measures are warranted while external components catch up.