The biggest question in Starknet's quantum discussion isn't whether its cryptography can change. It's who controls the timing when that change becomes necessary. And I think this is where the conversation around @Starknet becoming an independent L1 gets interesting. Most people hear "quantum-resistant blockchain" and immediately think about replacing vulnerable wallet signatures. But there is a much bigger question underneath that: what happens when a network is technically capable of upgrading its security, yet parts of that security still depend on another network's decisions? Starknet already has two important architectural advantages. Its STARK proofs verify computation using hash-based cryptography rather than relying on the elliptic-curve assumptions targeted by Shor's algorithm. Its native account abstraction also makes accounts programmable. Developers can implement new signature verification methods without requiring the entire network to undergo a protocol upgrade. That's what cryptographic agility looks like in practice. But here's the complication. Starknet currently operates as an Ethereum L2. Its settlement and data availability arrangements introduce dependencies that Starknet cannot simply resolve through its own account upgrades. Ethereum's published target is December 2029 for quantum resistance across its execution, consensus and data layers. That is a development target, not a prediction of when quantum attacks will become practical. So even if Starknet can prepare parts of its own architecture earlier, its wider security still depends on Ethereum-facing infrastructure. Now the independent L1 discussion starts to make sense. On October 22, 2026, Starknet's non-binding governance poll closed with 93.52% of voting power supporting research into an independent L1. Importantly, the vote did not approve a transition. It authorized research into whether the direction makes technical and economic sense. Personally, I think that's the right distinction to make. Security autonomy is valuable, but independence alone doesn't guarantee better security. Moving away from Ethereum would also mean examining how Starknet could replace the settlement, consensus and data availability guarantees it currently relies on. Those trade-offs deserve serious investigation. What interests me most isn't the possibility of Starknet becoming an L1 simply for the sake of independence. It's the possibility of designing infrastructure that can respond to new cryptographic threats without having every security decision constrained by an external migration schedule. Quantum computing and AI-assisted mathematical breakthroughs remind us that security assumptions can change. The networks we build today need practical ways to adapt when they do. For me, that is the deeper meaning of Starknet: Built to Adapt. The question worth discussing is whether Starknet can gain greater control over its cryptographic future while preserving the security guarantees users depend on. Explore the research and migration status through the StarkWare Quantum Hub: quantum.starkware.co/