We spend so much time worrying about keeping our crypto safe, but rarely think about what happens when the security methods themselves need to change. And I think that's a conversation worth having, especially as quantum computing and AI continue to advance. ➥ one thing I appreciate about @Starknet is that its architecture was designed with flexibility in mind. Most of us don't really think about the cryptography behind our wallets. We just expect our transactions to be secure. But if the methods we trust today become vulnerable, upgrading them shouldn't require rebuilding everything from scratch. That's where Starknet's programmable accounts come in. Instead of tying every account to one fixed signature method, developers can introduce new signature schemes at the account level without requiring a network-wide upgrade. There's also an important distinction here: ➫ Account signatures determine who can authorize transactions. ➫ STARK proofs verify that computations were executed correctly. Because these serve different purposes, changing how an account authorizes transactions doesn't necessarily mean replacing the underlying proving system. Of course, Starknet isn't fully quantum-safe today. Some parts of its security architecture still depend on Ethereum, and there's more migration work ahead. But what I like about this approach is that it doesn't assume today's cryptography will be enough forever. We can't predict every threat that might emerge in the future. And honestly, I'd rather see projects preparing for uncertainty now than scrambling to find solutions when something breaks. That's the kind of long-term thinking I'd love to see more of in crypto. ➟ quantum.starkware.co/

A lot of people are still mad at InfoFi. Take advantage of it.