Mentioned in This Article
1. What Starknet's community is being asked to decide
Starknet, the Ethereum scaling network developed by StarkWare, opened a community poll on October 15 asking holders of its STRK token whether the project should research becoming a standalone, quantum-resistant Layer 1 blockchain. The Snapshot vote runs until October 22, is open to STRK stakers and delegators, and is non-binding. A majority in favor would start research only; it would not move the network off Ethereum.
The question is narrower than it may sound. Starknet today is a Layer 2, meaning it processes transactions off Ethereum and relies on the main chain for settlement and security. Becoming an independent Layer 1 would turn it into a sovereign network with its own validators and its own base layer. The poll does not ask for that change. It asks only whether the idea deserves a formal study.
2. How the Snapshot poll is structured
The poll opened at 09:32 UTC on October 15 and will close at the same time on October 22, giving voters one week. Snapshot is an off-chain voting tool widely used by crypto communities to measure sentiment, with votes weighted by token holdings and no gas fees for voters. Because results are recorded off-chain, a Snapshot outcome does not trigger any automatic change to a protocol.
Participants can choose one of three answers: yes, the move should be researched; no, it should not; or neutral, meaning the voter needs more information. StarkWare described the ballot as the first governance vote on the potential transition. The poll has no quorum requirement, so the result will stand however many holders take part.
The proposal text is explicit about the limits of the exercise. It states that backing further research does not approve a transition to a Layer 1, and it says any future decision to go ahead would have to pass through a dedicated governance process of its own.
3. What post-quantum security means for a blockchain
Most public blockchains authenticate transactions with digital signatures built on elliptic-curve mathematics. Today those signatures are safe because deriving a private key from a public key is computationally infeasible for conventional computers. A sufficiently large quantum computer running Shor's algorithm could, in theory, perform that derivation, which is why researchers describe signature schemes of this kind as vulnerable in the long run.
Post-quantum security refers to cryptography designed to withstand such machines. Approaches include signatures built from hash functions and other mathematical structures that are not known to be solvable by quantum algorithms. For a blockchain, adopting them is not a simple software patch: signature sizes, verification costs, wallet software and every piece of infrastructure that touches transactions can be affected.
That explains why the timing of a migration matters as much as the choice of technology. A network that controls its entire stack can plan the change as one coordinated effort, whereas a layer that depends on another chain must align its schedule with that chain's roadmap. This is the practical argument at the heart of the Starknet proposal.
It also explains why the Starknet team points to its existing STARK proofs. Because they depend on hash functions, they are widely considered to be among the proof systems least exposed to quantum attack, and that gives the project a head start on part of the problem even before any decision about its base layer.
4. Why is Starknet considering a post-quantum Layer 1?
Security is the stated motive. Henri of the Starknet Foundation set out the reasoning in a forum post attached to the poll. Starknet's own components, he wrote, can be made resistant to quantum attacks in the near term. Its bridge and its data availability layer, however, depend on Ethereum, and they can only be hardened as quickly as Ethereum itself upgrades. A chain of its own would remove that dependency.
The concern behind the debate is the long-term prospect of quantum computers powerful enough to break the elliptic-curve signatures that protect most of today's blockchains. Such machines do not exist at that scale, but protocol designers argue that migrating a large network takes years, so preparation has to begin well before a working machine arrives. A layer that relies on a slower-moving base chain inherits that chain's schedule, which is the exposure Starknet's team wants to examine.
The forum post also points to features Starknet already has. The network uses hash-based STARK proofs, a proof system generally regarded as resistant to quantum attacks because it rests on hash functions rather than on the mathematical problems quantum algorithms can solve. It also supports native account abstraction, which lets accounts define their own signature schemes and could make switching to quantum-safe signatures easier.
5. What a yes, a no or a neutral vote would mean
The proposal lays out what follows from each answer. A yes vote would launch a research effort that is expected to produce more detailed proposals, which would in turn be put to further polls. A no vote would leave Starknet as a Layer 2 while work on post-quantum protection continues on that basis. A neutral vote is meant to keep the forum discussion open until the questions voters raise have been answered.
The post stresses that no timeline for a switch has been set. It also names two things that would hold under any outcome. STRK would remain the network's token, and no new token would be created. Bridges from Ethereum into Starknet would stay open, so users and applications would not be cut off from the main chain.
Those assurances address the two most obvious worries of token holders: that a new chain would dilute or replace the existing asset, and that liquidity could become stranded. Whether they are enough to settle the broader debate is something the research phase, if approved, would have to examine in detail.
6. Early voting leans heavily toward research
Turnout was small in the first hours. By about 14:40 UTC on October 15, 293 votes had been cast, according to Snapshot data. Roughly 99.9% of the approximately 179.8 million in voting power recorded at that point supported the yes option.
An early lopsided count is not a reliable guide to the final result. Early voters tend to be the most engaged members of a community, and a few large holders can dominate a weighted tally in the opening hours. With a full week remaining and no quorum threshold, the picture could shift as more delegators and stakers weigh in.
StarkWare co-founder and chief executive Eli Ben-Sasson invited the community to take part, writing on X that becoming a Layer 1 is a big deal and that post-quantum security is as well, and that the team wants to hear what holders think.
7. How the idea reached a formal vote
The proposal moved quickly from a conference remark to a ballot. Ben-Sasson first raised it on October 8 during a talk at Token2049, where he asked whether a Layer 1 built for post-quantum agility would be a good or a bad idea. The same day, Starknet's official account said the network was considering the move and gave 2027 as its target for full quantum resistance.
Two days later, on October 10, StarkWare stated that becoming an independent Layer 1 is its clearest path forward. That statement signaled a leaning on the part of the development team, even though the poll itself is framed as an open question. Within five more days the community vote was live.
The sequence shows how the team is trying to combine a technical roadmap with governance. Instead of announcing an architectural change and asking for approval afterward, it is asking holders whether the topic should be studied before any design is committed.
8. The trade-offs of leaving a base layer
Layer 2 networks borrow security from Ethereum, and that inheritance is a core part of their appeal. Moving to an independent Layer 1 would mean Starknet must secure itself, recruit and keep validators, and persuade users that its base layer is robust without Ethereum's backing. Those are significant undertakings, and they are likely to be central questions if research goes ahead.
There are also reasons a team might accept those costs. Control over the base layer would let Starknet adopt new cryptography on its own timetable instead of waiting for changes on Ethereum. For a project whose main promise is advanced cryptography, being able to set that pace may be worth the added responsibility.
The proposal does not claim the trade-off has been resolved, and a yes vote would not resolve it either. The point of the research phase is precisely to weigh these factors and return to the community with concrete designs.
9. What happens after October 22?
Voting closes on October 22 at 09:32 UTC, and the outcome will be visible as soon as the poll ends. If the yes option prevails, the next step is research that would produce more detailed proposals and additional polls, rather than any change to the live network. If the no option wins, Starknet stays a Layer 2 and continues its post-quantum work on that path.
Whatever the result, the target of full quantum resistance in 2027 remains the milestone the team has publicly named. Holders who want a say still have until the closing time next week, and the forum thread attached to the poll remains the place where questions are being collected and answered.
For readers outside the community, the vote is best understood as a measurement of sentiment rather than a decision. It tells the development team how much appetite exists for a structural change before any engineering effort is committed, and it gives holders a documented way to register concerns about issues such as validator security, liquidity and the future role of Ethereum in the network's design.