The more I read about @Starknet and quantum security, the more I think the real challenge isn’t simply choosing strong cryptography. It’s making sure a system can change its security approach when the assumptions behind it start to shift. No one can say when quantum computing or AI-assisted mathematics might affect today’s cryptographic tools. That uncertainty makes flexibility worth taking seriously. Starknet has an interesting design here. Its STARK proofs use hash-based cryptography to verify computation, while programmable accounts can support different signature verification methods. Those pieces serve different purposes: proofs help establish that computation was carried out correctly, while signatures determine whether a transaction is authorized. Because they sit at different layers, they may be able to evolve independently rather than requiring one massive network-wide change. That doesn’t mean Starknet is already quantum-safe. Existing accounts and dependencies connected to Ethereum still need to be considered, and any migration would involve real work. But I find the broader idea compelling. Preparing for a future security challenge isn’t about predicting exactly which technology will change first. It’s about designing infrastructure that has room to respond when it does. That’s the part of Starknet’s long-term approach I’m most interested in. More on the research: https://t.co/YneY7Pnu5Z