Starknet

Quantum

Ethereum

<img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://blockchainreporter.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/starknet-strk-10.webp" alt="starknet" style="float: right; margin-left: 5px;" title="Starknet Votes 93.52% to Explore Becoming an Independent Post-Quantum Layer 1 23">
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://blockchainreporter.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/starknet-strk-10.webp" alt="Starknet STRK token against a glowing starfield" title="Starknet Votes 93.52% to Explore Becoming an Independent Post-Quantum Layer 1 22">
</figure>
<p>Starknet token holders have handed the network’s builders a deliberately narrow mandate. A seven-day governance vote closed on October 22 with <strong>93.52%</strong> of voting power in favor of researching whether Starknet should become an independent, quantum-resistant layer-1 blockchain instead of remaining a layer 2 settled on Ethereum. Roughly <strong>3,200</strong> votes were cast in the non-binding poll, which StarkWare said drew the highest participation in the network’s governance history. The result, recorded in a <a href="https://community.starknet.io/t/should-starknet-become-an-independent-post-quantum-l1/116392" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">proposal on the Starknet community forum</a>, authorizes study — not departure: Starknet keeps operating as an Ethereum layer 2, STRK remains its token, and the bridges between the two chains stay open.</p>
<h2 id="a-research-mandate-not-a-migration-authorization">A Research Mandate, Not a Migration Authorization</h2>
<p>The ballot was written to constrain what a “yes” means. Voters could support further research, oppose it, or remain neutral pending more information. StarkWare, which first floated the idea on October 8, abstained from voting, leaving the decision to STRK holders and their delegates. StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation will now examine an independent, quantum-resistant network design before any second governance decision is put to a vote.</p>
<p>That sequencing matters, because the <a href="https://governance.starknet.io/#/s:starknet.eth/proposal/0x31dffc8b6f24c580540cc967fdede3d8e9d513c105d3f699a14ae65bd0dc5d74" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Snapshot ballot</a> is explicitly non-binding. The forum post states that the poll “seeks to gauge STRK holders’ interest in exploring that direction further,” and maps out the branches: a “yes” starts a research effort leading to more detailed proposals; a “no” keeps post-quantum work on the layer-2 path; a “neutral” leaves the thread open. Nothing in the result moves a single asset or changes a validator’s duties today.</p>
<h2 id="the-security-logic-what-starknet-controls-and-what-it-does-not">The Security Logic: What Starknet Controls and What It Does Not</h2>
<p>The case for independence is a timeline problem, not an identity one. Starknet already runs on hash-based STARK proofs and native account abstraction, so the components under Starknet’s own control can be made quantum-resistant on Starknet’s schedule. The components that depend on Ethereum cannot.</p>
<p>As the proposal’s author framed it in the forum: “The parts of Starknet under Starknet’s control can be quantum-resistant soon. The parts that depend on Ethereum, such as the bridge and data availability, are tied to Ethereum’s timeline. An independent L1 removes that dependency.”</p>
<p>StarkWare’s <a href="https://starkware.co/blog/the-architecture-advantage-starknets-quantum-readiness-roadmap/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">quantum-readiness roadmap</a> names two remaining dependencies: Ethereum’s bridge-messaging infrastructure and its blob-based data availability, which relies on KZG commitments and elliptic-curve cryptography. StarkWare considers both vulnerable to a sufficiently powerful future quantum computer. Ethereum’s own deposit contract is already the subject of a <a href="https://blockchainreporter.net/ethereums-deposit-contract-could-get-a-post-quantum-rewrite/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">post-quantum rewrite discussion</a>, but that process advances on Ethereum’s timeline, not Starknet’s.</p>
<p>The asymmetry behind all of this is cryptographic. STARK proofs are built on hash functions rather than the discrete-logarithm and elliptic-curve assumptions that underpin most blockchain signatures and commitments. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could break the latter; it cannot brute-force a well-chosen hash. That is why Starknet’s core can claim quantum safety today, while Ethereum’s KZG commitments — a form of elliptic-curve pairing cryptography used to verify blob data — and its bridge signatures cannot. For a holder or an issuer watching the roadmap, the distinction between “already quantum-safe” and “waiting on Ethereum” is the entire argument for a standalone chain.</p>
<h2 id="validators-push-back-a-transfer-of-dependency-not-a-gain-in-decentralization">Validators Push Back: A Transfer of Dependency, Not a Gain in Decentralization</h2>
<p>Not everyone in the community reads the move as progress. One validator, posting as ceri1, argued that becoming a layer 1 would not make Starknet more decentralized — only more responsible for its own security.</p>
<p>“Becoming an L1 does not decentralize Starknet. It drops Ethereum’s security budget and asks the current STRK set to replace it,” they wrote, noting that staking is still in phase 2 of 4, that validators stake <strong>20,000 STRK</strong> and attest with a full node, and that reorg and censorship resistance still come from Ethereum. “Until those answers are public, this is a transfer of dependency, not a gain in decentralization.”</p>
<p>The critique names the real risk in any layer-1 migration: the validator set that today relies on Ethereum for finality would, after a migration, have to carry block production, finality, and data availability on its own. At current prices, the 20,000 STRK minimum stake is worth about <strong>$1,120</strong> (20,000 × $0.056 per CoinMarketCap) — a modest bond against a materially larger security load. Starknet’s roughly 7.2 billion circulating STRK implies a market capitalization near <strong>$400 million</strong>, a fraction of the security budget Ethereum currently extends to it.</p>
<h2 id="no-new-token-and-the-bridges-stay-open">No New Token, and the Bridges Stay Open</h2>
<p>Whatever the eventual architecture, the vote fixes the questions holders tend to ask first. The proposal is explicit: “Whatever the path, STRK is the token, with no new token. Bridges from Ethereum to Starknet will stay open.”</p>
<p>For operators, that stability is the reason to pursue the research now. Mon, from the Cumulo validator team, which runs a Starknet validator on mainnet and Sepolia and voted yes, wrote: “We think this is the right moment to explore this path. Starknet starts with a clear advantage thanks to STARK proofs and native account abstraction, and understanding what it would mean to reduce its dependency on Ethereum is a conversation worth having carefully and with real data.”</p>
<p>The post-quantum framing also shaped the outcome. As one community member put it: “If we have a competitive advantage in this area, I believe we have a responsibility to explore it, especially given the quantum threat facing the broader blockchain ecosystem.”</p>
<h2 id="november-whitepaper-and-the-next-governance-gate">November Whitepaper and the Next Governance Gate</h2>
<p>The next concrete deliverable is a draft whitepaper, which StarkWare has said it plans to publish in November. That document will set out the technical questions a migration would have to answer — consensus design, data availability, bridge and liquidity risk during any transition — and there is no binding timetable or instruction for users to move assets. A final decision to operate as a standalone network would require another governance vote.</p>
<p>The outcome also lands amid a broader industry move toward post-quantum standards, including a <a href="https://blockchainreporter.net/quantum-alliance-post-quantum-standards/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">nine-firm Quantum Alliance</a> formed to set shared post-quantum baselines. Starknet’s vote does not commit it to that path; it commits it to producing a design its community can judge.</p>
<h2 id="what-the-vote-changes-and-what-it-does-not">What the Vote Changes — and What It Does Not</h2>
<p>In the near term, Starknet remains what it is today: an Ethereum layer 2 using STARK proofs, with STRK as its token and its bridges to Ethereum open. The vote converts a proposal into a research question with a defined next step. The limitation is equally clear: a research mandate is not evidence that the STRK validator set can yet carry the full security load of a standalone chain, and the November document will test exactly that.</p>
<p>STRK traded near <strong>$0.056</strong> on October 22, roughly 98% below its February 2024 peak, according to CoinMarketCap. The token has labored under a steady widening of its circulating supply since its 2024 airdrop, as monthly unlocks push the float toward a 10 billion total, and that supply overhang has weighed on price as much as any sentiment shift. The vote’s “no new token” pledge is therefore not a footnote — it removes the one outcome that could have diluted existing holders a second time.</p>
<p>For holders, validators, and the institutions watching, the next observable signal is not a launch but a whitepaper, and the next decision point after that is another vote. Starknet has chosen to study the exit before taking it — a procedural sequence that, in a sector prone to rushed migrations, is itself the headline.</p>

Starknet Votes 93.52% to Explore Becoming an Independent Post-Quantum Layer 1

Table of Contents

BlockchainReporter

Other articles published on Oct 22, 2026

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!