Imagine buying a smart lock for your house. The lock checks your key before opening the door. Years later, a better authentication method becomes available. Would you rather replace every lock in the entire neighborhood, or update the way your own lock verifies who you are? That is a useful way to understand one of Starknet's security design ideas. A signature authorizes a transaction. A STARK proof verifies that a computation was performed correctly. These are different jobs, and neither should be confused with the other. With programmable accounts, developers can define how an account validates authorization. That creates room for alternative signature methods without necessarily requiring every change to become a network-wide upgrade. The important detail is that programmability alone does not make every new cryptographic method secure or automatically available. The implementation and the network rules still matter. But the design principle is powerful: security should have a path to evolve without forcing the entire system to start over. That is one reason I pay attention to account abstraction on @Starknet . It is not just about making wallets more convenient. It can also make future security transitions more flexible.