Making a blockchain resistant to quantum attacks involves more than upgrading its proof system. The wallets signing transactions need protection too. This is an important part of what @Starknet is exploring with its post-quantum security strategy. Here’s the challenge. Most traditional crypto wallets depend on elliptic curve signatures to authorize transactions. These methods are secure against known attacks from classical computers, but a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could use Shor’s algorithm to break the underlying cryptographic assumptions. Starknet is exploring protection through two important design choices. 1. STARK-based proof system Unlike many proof systems that rely on elliptic curve cryptography, STARKs use hash-based cryptographic assumptions. This gives Starknet’s proving architecture a foundation considered more resistant to known quantum attacks. But protecting computation proofs doesn’t automatically protect wallet signatures. 2. Flexible account security Starknet accounts are programmable smart contracts. This means developers can customize how transactions are authorized instead of being restricted to one signature algorithm. That flexibility creates room for post-quantum signature schemes without requiring an entire network upgrade. There has also been progress beyond theory. An experimental Falcon-512 account demonstrated a post-quantum-signed transaction on Starknet mainnet in July 2026. Falcon-512 uses lattice-based cryptography designed to withstand quantum attacks, although the experimental implementation was unaudited and shouldn’t be mistaken for production-ready security. 3. The work still ahead There are challenges around legacy cryptographic dependencies, Ethereum-related security assumptions, implementation audits, and transaction costs. Falcon verification is also significantly more expensive than conventional ECDSA verification, making optimization an important part of the process. StarkWare has reported progress in reducing that overhead, but there is still engineering work to do. My takeaway: I don’t think the interesting part is claiming that Starknet is already fully quantum-proof. It’s the fact that its architecture provides two important ingredients: quantum-resistant proving and programmable accounts that can adopt new signature methods. The real achievement will be turning that flexibility into affordable, audited and widely adopted protection. Preparing for future threats is one thing. Making that protection practical for everyday users is where the real test begins. 🔐

It’s official: @FungoLabs will hold its Genesis NFT mint on November 5, 2026. 🟨 The launch starts with 500 whitelist mints, followed by a sealed-bid auction for 2,500 NFTs. Bids are submitted in confidential $cZAMA, with both the amount and requested quantity kept private during the auction. Here’s how the sale is set to work: → You can bid at any price and request more than one NFT. → The price receiving the most bids becomes the final clearing price. → Bids below that price are refunded in full. → Bids above it receive the full quantity requested. → Bids at the clearing price are filled proportionally. All successful bidders pay the same final price. Keep in mind that bids are binding and include a small, non-refundable fee. The NFTs will be minted sealed, with holders deciding who can view them. A privacy-focused auction for a privacy-focused project. Follow @FungoLabs for official updates. 🪂

I think we all eligible for @FungoLabs right for one at least? Not holding my Zama OG nft Eligible for the genesis nft Now we wait for the x campaign details Hope we all smile.

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

One thing I find interesting about @Starknet is that security is not just about the technology you use today. It is also about how much control you have when that technology needs to change. As an Ethereum L2, Starknet still relies on parts of Ethereum’s infrastructure. That creates an important question when looking ahead to potential quantum threats. What happens if today’s cryptographic standards eventually need replacing? Starknet can work on upgrading its own security, but some changes may also depend on Ethereum’s ability to adapt. This is part of the thinking behind exploring a move towards an independent L1. The idea is not that Ethereum is insecure. It’s about having greater control over critical decisions, especially the timeline for future security upgrades. Quantum computing may not pose an immediate threat, and there are still many unknowns. Moving towards an independent L1 would not automatically solve every challenge either. But preparing before a threat becomes urgent makes sense to me. Strong security matters, but having the flexibility to evolve that security could matter just as much. Research worth keeping an eye on. 👀

One thing we rarely consider when setting up a crypto wallet is how easily its security can adapt to future threats. What happens when the cryptographic methods we rely on today need to be replaced? @Starknet has an interesting approach to this through native account abstraction. Since each Starknet account is a smart contract, its transaction authorization logic can be customized without requiring the entire network to upgrade. Here’s why that matters: → Wallets can adopt different signature verification methods. → Users can potentially upgrade security without changing their account address or moving their assets. → Individual accounts can make these changes without waiting for a network wide upgrade. Starknet’s Quantum Hub also includes an Account Change assessment in its Bunker Checklist to evaluate this kind of flexibility. But there’s an important distinction: being able to change signature schemes doesn’t automatically make every wallet quantum resistant. Broader dependencies and other security considerations still matter. What I appreciate is the focus on adaptability. We can’t assume today’s cryptography will remain secure forever. Building systems that can accommodate new methods could make future transitions much easier. The goal isn’t to predict every threat. It’s to make sure our wallets have a way to respond when security standards evolve. 🔐

Why should developers have to pick between building for Solana and using the tools they already know from Ethereum? That’s the problem @RomeProtocol is trying to solve. Rome brings an EVM into Solana as a single program, allowing both execution environments to work together instead of relying on a traditional bridge between separate chains. Here’s what makes the design interesting: → Solidity contracts can interact with Solana programs within one atomic transaction. → Developers and users can continue using their familiar EVM or Solana wallets. → Applications can access shared contract state and liquidity across both environments. What caught my attention is that Rome is already live on Solana mainnet. The project also has a Halborn audit, public code, and the Via explorer, where users can trace EVM transactions back to their Solana instructions. For me, this is about making development less fragmented. Builders shouldn’t have to abandon their existing tools just to tap into another ecosystem’s strengths. If Rome can make these interactions seamless in practice, it could open up some interesting possibilities for cross ecosystem DeFi. 👀

Crypto security isn’t just about protecting our assets today. It’s also about preparing for threats that could emerge tomorrow. That’s one reason I find @Starknet’s approach to account flexibility interesting, especially with quantum computing advancing. Think about how wallets work. We rely on cryptographic signatures to approve transactions, but what happens if the methods we use today eventually become vulnerable? Starknet’s programmable accounts offer an interesting path forward. Instead of locking every account into one signature scheme, developers can build support for different authorization methods at the account level. There are two things worth separating here: → Signatures determine whether a transaction is authorized. → STARK proofs provide cryptographic evidence that computations were performed correctly. They solve different problems, so changing an account’s signature method doesn’t automatically require replacing the proving system. Of course, Starknet isn’t fully quantum resistant today. Ethereum dependencies and other parts of the stack still need consideration. But preparing for future cryptographic changes before they become urgent is a smart move. We don’t know exactly what tomorrow’s threats will look like. Building systems that can adapt could make all the difference. Explore the research 👇 https://t.co/qLZHtbRjDd

Are we all going back to yapping about @KaitoAI now it looks like that it’s back?

Tokenizing real world assets is one thing. Getting that capital to actually work in DeFi is another. The latest RWA figures make that gap hard to ignore. Here’s what stands out: $34.44B in total onchain RWA AUM $31.16B in active AUM $4.33B deployed across DeFi $19.82B in RWA perp open interest $47.50B in daily RWA trading volume Only around 13.9% of active RWA capital is currently deployed in DeFi. And most of that activity is concentrated in a handful of protocols: → @Morpho Blue: $768.1M → @Kamino Lend: $423.1M → @Aave V3: $417.2M → @grovedotfinance: $394.7M → @pendle_fi V2: $351.5M Together, they account for roughly $2.35B, more than half of the reported DeFi deployment. Meanwhile, RWA perpetuals are attracting significant trading activity, with open interest approaching $20B. These numbers measure different things, so they aren’t directly comparable. But they highlight an interesting trend: leveraged trading is growing alongside tokenization, while lending, collateral use, and yield opportunities still have room to expand. Of course, not every tokenized asset can be freely used in DeFi. Regulatory restrictions, liquidity, and collateral eligibility all matter. Still, the opportunity is worth watching. The next big RWA opportunity may not be about who tokenizes the most assets. It may be about which protocols make those assets genuinely useful across onchain financial markets.