Account abstraction is usually framed as better wallet UX. To me, the more interesting part is adaptability . Quantum computing and new mathematical discoveries, potentially accelerated by AI, could expose weaknesses in today’s cryptography. The question isn’t just is this secure today? but how can it adapt if the assumptions change? Starknet’s programmable accounts let developers introduce new signature methods without a network-wide upgrade. That’s a practical example of cryptographic agility: being able to adopt new cryptography as security requirements evolve. But account-level flexibility isn’t the whole picture. As an Ethereum L2, parts of Starknet’s wider security architecture still depend on Ethereum’s cryptography and migration timeline. That’s the security rationale behind exploring an independent L1: greater control over core security upgrades and how quickly they happen. Not a claim that every future threat is already solved. A focus on having the flexibility to respond. @Starknet