Can the most important cryptographic projects effectively fortify themselves ahead of the arrival of Q-Day or major artificial intelligence breakthroughs in advanced mathematics? That is the grand question, and it is one that is being debated more intensely than ever across the blockchain industry in the wake of researcher Justin Drake’s recent "bunker mode" comments. Only time will tell whether those remarks underestimated or overestimated the timeline regarding impending mathematical breakthroughs. But, in any case, both the quantum and AI threats are very real. They are not distant, abstract dangers, and some cryptocurrency projects are taking these looming specters far more seriously than others.
Among these forward-looking projects is Starknet, whose builders made significant waves when they announced they were actively considering transitioning the chain from an Ethereum Layer 2 network to a standalone Layer 1 blockchain. The motivation behind this bold potential pivot is straightforward: to harden the network against quantum computing and artificial intelligence threats far more quickly than the chain can achieve while remaining directly tethered to Ethereum as a rollup.
As some industry observers may recall, StarkWare’s post-quantum roadmap from late June did not float the idea of launching an L1. However, StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson has since stressed that this concept has evolved rapidly from a growing consensus and concern that traditional cryptography might get broken much sooner than the broader crypto industry currently expects.
The underlying logic of the proposed shift is compelling. As an independent Layer 1 network, Starknet could set the pace of its own security upgrades rather than being forced to follow Ethereum’s slower, more cautious upgrade schedule. This autonomy would put the network squarely on track for what its developers bill as the first fully quantum-resistant network, with a targeted completion date set for 2027. So why can’t Starknet get there while remaining an Ethereum Layer 2?
The June roadmap clearly illustrates the bottleneck. It splits Starknet’s quantum migration into three distinct phases. The first two phases—such as swapping Pedersen hashing for the quantum-resistant hash function BLAKE2, adding post-quantum signatures like Falcon-512, and migrating legacy smart contracts—are entirely Starknet’s to execute independently. However, the third phase is not within their exclusive control, as it covers critical components that Starknet effectively borrows directly from Ethereum.
That said, it might be a few years before Ethereum finishes its own comprehensive post-quantum evolutions, which would naturally put key pieces of Starknet’s defensive roadmap on ice for at least that long. This is a fundamental structural reality that other rollup projects will undoubtedly have to contend with as well. Because a Layer 2 rollup intrinsically inherits the Layer 1 network’s cryptography alongside its base security, its quantum timeline is effectively limited to whichever system is slower: its own internal development or the underlying L1’s infrastructure.
Thus, simply put, Starknet is anticipating coming up against this structural wall because its internal engineering teams can execute their side of the work much faster than the broader Ethereum ecosystem can complete its sweeping upgrades. What is particularly interesting, too, is that some of Ethereum’s own internal quantum plans will eventually make it look structurally more like Starknet.
For instance, Ethereum is currently pursuing EIP-8141, which among other vital improvements would let individual accounts adopt quantum-safe digital signatures on their own independent timelines rather than forcing them to wait for a cumbersome, network-wide migration. Starknet, meanwhile, has featured native account abstraction—meaning every single account is natively a programmable smart contract—for years. That foundational architecture is precisely why developers like S2morrow could already build a fully functioning post-quantum Starknet account centered around Falcon-512 signatures without requiring any underlying protocol changes.
Moreover, Ethereum’s long-term roadmap plans to swap its current BLS validator signatures for leanXMSS, a hash-based cryptographic scheme, and to compress the bulkier resulting proofs with zero-knowledge proofs via a specialized execution environment known as leanVM. Ethereum also lists STARK-based polynomial commitments among the leading candidates to replace KZG commitments. STARKs are hash-based by design, a technological pedigree that literally puts the "Stark" in Starknet.
In kind, over the past couple of years, Starknet has steadily assembled much of the complex machinery it would need to operate as a fully functioning Layer 1 network, including STRK staking, decentralized multi-sequencer architecture, and more. These sophisticated pieces were originally constructed to make Starknet a more robust, decentralized extension of Ethereum, but they inadvertently shrink the chain’s L1 architectural question considerably.
From an infrastructure perspective, the missing pieces for now include data availability mechanisms—where transaction data gets published so that any network participant can independently rebuild the chain—final settlement capabilities, and a thorough reworking of the official cross-chain bridge as needed.
Speaking of bridging, consider how a traditional StarkGate withdrawal works today: user funds are only released after Ethereum has cryptographically verified the validity proof for the withdrawal’s specific block and the matching state update has successfully landed on the mainnet. Put otherwise, Ethereum checks Starknet’s math, meaning Starknet’s operators cannot forge the network state that bridged funds ultimately depend upon.
An independent Layer 1 Starknet could land anywhere on that operational spectrum, though. It might continue posting STARK validity proofs back to Ethereum to back a trust-minimized bridge, or it might decide to cut the cord entirely. Those are fundamentally different trust models, making this the open question that industry watchers should monitor closely.
It is also worth remembering that Starknet has long pitched itself as a versatile scaling layer that could one day settle transactions on both Bitcoin and Ethereum. While that is not technically the same thing as leaving Ethereum entirely, a proof-connected Starknet Layer 1 that bridges liquidity to both major ecosystems would arguably rhyme with that ambitious founding vision rather than completely break away from it.
For now, no official migration has formally kicked off, but it seems increasingly clear that a standalone Layer 1 architecture is the primary path forward under serious consideration for Starknet. Whatever ultimately happens, the chain’s leadership wants to move sooner rather than later, because there might not be a later for the crypto projects that fail to make these crucial structural adjustments in time.
Tokenomics & Digital Assets
Tokenomics & Digital Assets
Tokenomics & Digital Assets
