Key Notes
- Starknet is considering an L1 transition to gain control over security upgrades, with no migration decision or launch schedule announced.
- Eli Ben-Sasson sees quantum resistance as possible in 2027, while Ethereum targets full L1 protection by December 2029.
- Hash-based STARK proofs and programmable accounts support migration, but wallets, existing contracts and Ethereum dependencies still require work.
Starknet is considering becoming an independent layer-one blockchain to gain greater control over security upgrades as quantum computing and AI raise new cryptographic concerns. StarkWare co-founder Eli Ben-Sasson presented the possibility on October 8, without announcing an approved migration.
In a thread summarizing his TOKEN2049 remarks, Ben-Sasson argued that networks need both stronger cryptography and the ability to replace security components quickly.
Starknet becoming an L1 for post-quantum agility
— Eli Ben-Sasson (@EliBenSasson) October 8, 2026
He said Starknet could achieve quantum resistance in 2027. That estimate concerns security readiness; it does not establish a launch date for a standalone L1.
Why an L1 Would Change the Security Timetable
Starknet currently operates as an Ethereum layer-two validity rollup. Its roadmap explains that Ethereum verifies proofs of Starknet’s state changes, allowing the network to inherit security guarantees from the base chain.
That arrangement makes Ethereum’s cryptographic migration relevant even when Starknet can improve its own components. Ben-Sasson said the team is examining several options if the underlying network cannot move quickly enough.
“We’re considering multiple options, including becoming an L1,” he wrote. The proposed advantage is control over security migrations instead of relying on another chain’s upgrade schedule.
The published decentralization roadmap, last updated March 22, still describes Starknet’s longer-term direction as an L2 settling on both Ethereum and Bitcoin. The October 8 discussion therefore opens an architectural question beyond that published plan. The thread provides no migration specification, governance vote or implementation schedule.
Hash-Based Proofs Give Starknet a Starting Advantage
StarkWare’s technical overview identifies two features supporting the transition: STARK proofs and native account abstraction. STARKs rely on hash-based commitments rather than the elliptic-curve assumptions targeted by Shor’s quantum algorithm.
That gives the proving system a different security foundation from many conventional blockchain signatures. It does not make every component of Starknet automatically resistant to future attacks. Hash choices, security parameters and implementation quality remain relevant.
Account abstraction addresses a separate part of the problem. Starknet accounts are programmable contracts that can define which signatures authorize transactions. Developers can introduce a post-quantum verifier without requiring a protocol-wide hard fork for each new signature scheme.
An August 7 explainer described an experimental account that made a mainnet transfer using a post-quantum signature for about six cents. The account was unaudited and intended for research, distinguishing the demonstration from a production-ready wallet service.
Wallets, Existing Contracts and Ethereum Still Need Work
StarkWare’s migration register separates completed changes from research and external dependencies. It says existing accounts do not upgrade automatically: wallet integration, custody, key management, recovery and audits remain separate tasks.
The register lists a mainnet change to the hashes used for Starknet’s operating-system program and configuration. Changes to contract-address derivation and storage structures remain published directions, while tooling for older contracts is still research. A protected proving layer alone does not complete that work.
Ethereum-facing components add another dependency. Starknet normally publishes state differences through Ethereum blobs, which use KZG commitments. Its bridge and messaging systems also require consideration as Ethereum migrates. The register notes that calldata remains an alternative to the blob path.
These distinctions explain why Ben-Sasson’s argument focuses on control over upgrades. Becoming an L1 would still require a defined security architecture and a migration process for users and applications.
Ethereum Targets December 2029
The Ethereum Foundation’s Protocol cluster set a December 2029 target for quantum resistance across Ethereum L1’s execution, consensus and data layers in its September priorities update.
The Foundation describes that date as a self-imposed engineering deadline. Its planning assumption that a cryptographically relevant quantum computer could arrive as early as 2030 is deliberately aggressive; most estimates place that event later, and its timing remains uncertain.
Reaching full protection requires coordinated upgrades across several forks. The Foundation also describes a minimum viable post-quantum contingency with reduced guarantees, while retaining full resistance as its target. CoinScreamer previously examined the 2029 timetable and the changes required across protocol layers.
Ben-Sasson contrasted those plans with Bitcoin, which he said has made no comparable commitment. His comparison concerns stated migration timelines, rather than evidence that either network has suffered a quantum attack.
AI Adds Uncertainty Without Proving Wallets Are Broken
Ben-Sasson also warned that AI-assisted mathematical discoveries could undermine assumptions currently considered safe. That concern is distinct from the hardware requirements for a large quantum computer.
NIST’s current guidance offers a concrete example: an AI-discovered weakness led to the withdrawal of the candidate signature algorithm HAWK. NIST says that finding does not affect its finalized ML-KEM and ML-DSA standards, which it continues to recommend for implementation.
The agency also explains that nobody knows when a sufficiently powerful quantum computer will arrive. Preparing early reflects the time needed to replace cryptography across working systems.
As in Vitalik Buterin’s recent AI warning, concern about future mathematical breakthroughs should be distinguished from a demonstrated attack on ordinary wallets. For Starknet, the immediate development is the public consideration of an L1 option, with the architecture and any decision still unresolved.
Disclaimer: CoinScreamer is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and market insights on digital assets and related technologies. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the digital asset, blockchain, and technology sectors. These relationships do not influence CoinScreamer’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2025 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
