Different networks face different constraints when planning a post-quantum transition. A layer-1 that controls its own consensus, data availability, and bridge design can set a single internal schedule. A layer-2 that settles on another chain must coordinate with, or wait for, that chain’s upgrades on the surfaces it inherits. @Starknet current design places it in the second category for bridge messaging and data availability, while giving it independent control over its proof system and account model. The recent discussion about researching an independent layer-1 configuration is an attempt to quantify one possible way of removing the external dependency. Whether any particular timeline is realistic depends on the engineering required for a new consensus mechanism, data-availability solution, and bridge design, as well as on the governance process that would authorize the change. Staying as a layer-2 preserves existing security assumptions and liquidity relationships but ties the final post-quantum date to the settlement layer’s own migration. There is no universally correct choice; the relevant question is which set of residual risks a given set of users and applications prefers to accept. Explicitly framing the decision as a trade-off between autonomy and inherited security makes the evaluation more precise than a binary claim of readiness.