Good morning Lovelies….. 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀. Imagine a skyscraper where every door lock was welded into the steel frame during construction. The day a better lock pick appears, replacing 1 lock means moving every tenant out at once. @Starknet separates 2 jobs that most chains bundle together. ▸ Signatures authorise a transaction, like the lock on a door ▸ STARK proofs verify the computation, like an inspector checking the work inside. $STARK proofs are hash based, so they rest on a different foundation from the elliptic curve assumptions behind many signature schemes. With native account abstraction, every account is a programmable smart contract, so new signature methods can be added at the account level without a network wide upgrade. Each account still has to make that move itself. @Starknet is also an L2 on Ethereum, so part of its security depends on Ethereum’s cryptography and migration timeline. That is why Starknet is exploring an independent L1, so it has more say over when core security upgrades happen. Starknet is preparing for quantum threats, not claiming to be done with them. Systems that can swap 1 piece at a time have options, and rigid ones have deadlines. The StarkWare Quantum Hub assesses eight capabilities for changing cryptography. Counts reflect public evidence within its defined scope. Check [ quantum.starkware.co/ ]….