Mentioned in This Article
1. What did the Starknet vote decide?
Starknet token holders voted in favor of researching a move from Ethereum layer-2 to an independent, quantum-resistant layer-1 blockchain, in a seven-day governance poll that wrapped up on October 22. The result lets StarkWare, the company behind the network, and the Starknet Foundation go ahead with technical study. It does not approve a migration, which would need a separate binding vote. StarkWare says it plans to publish a draft whitepaper in November.
The poll was non-binding and StarkWare chose to abstain, saying it wanted the decision to rest with the community. That choice matters for how the outcome should be read: the vote reflects the preferences of independent token holders and not those of the company that proposed the idea. Starknet continues to operate as a layer-2 network on top of Ethereum while the research is carried out.
In practical terms, the vote answers a narrow question. It gives the two organizations a mandate to spend time and resources evaluating whether a standalone, post-quantum chain is feasible and worthwhile. Whether Starknet ever leaves the Ethereum ecosystem is a question for a later stage, once the research has produced concrete designs for people to evaluate.
For readers unfamiliar with the arrangement, a layer-2 network processes transactions away from the main Ethereum chain and then posts proofs and data back to it, inheriting much of its security. A layer-1 is a blockchain that secures itself. Moving from the first model to the second would change who is responsible for protecting the network, which is why the community was asked for its view before any engineering effort of that scale begins.
2. Why is Starknet considering a post-quantum layer-1?
StarkWare first floated the idea on October 8, pointing to the network's dependence on Ethereum for its security. The concern is tied to the possibility that large quantum computers could one day break the digital signature schemes that protect most blockchains today, including Ethereum's. A chain that relies on another chain for core functions inherits that other chain's timeline for fixing the problem.
Starknet already has some features that suit a post-quantum design. It uses STARK proofs, which are built on hash functions and are generally regarded as more resistant to quantum attacks than the elliptic-curve cryptography found in many other systems. The network also supports programmable accounts, which means users can adopt new signature types without waiting for a change to the base protocol.
The weak points are its bridge and its data availability, both of which still depend on Ethereum and therefore on how quickly Ethereum upgrades. StarkWare's argument is that a network cannot be fully quantum-resistant while those components remain tied to a base layer moving on a slower schedule. An independent chain would remove that dependency, at the cost of leaving behind the security and liquidity that come from settling on Ethereum.
3. What happens after the vote?
StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation have formed a working group to study the transition and write detailed technical proposals. The group's output will determine what the community eventually sees, and the first public product is expected to be a whitepaper. StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson told Cointelegraph that the team was starting work on it and hoped to release a draft for public review in November.
A draft released for scrutiny is meant to invite criticism from outside engineers and researchers before any commitments are made. The document is likely to cover the questions that a decision would hinge on, such as how the new chain would be secured, how it would handle assets and applications currently on Starknet, and what would happen to the connections to Ethereum.
Only after that process could a formal proposal reach a binding vote. The earlier poll explicitly stops short of authorizing a switch, so token holders will have another chance to weigh in with a fuller picture of the design and its trade-offs.
Non-binding polls of this kind are a common tool in blockchain governance. They let a project measure sentiment cheaply and publicly before committing to formal proposals, which usually carry stricter procedures. The outcome carries political weight even without legal force, because it shows whether the people who hold and use the token want the team to pursue a given direction.
4. What stays the same for STRK and the bridges?
The governance proposal set out several terms that are meant to reduce disruption. STRK would remain the native token of Starknet, and there are no plans to issue a new one. For holders, that means the research does not involve a token swap or a replacement asset under the terms of the proposal.
Existing bridges between Starknet and Ethereum would also stay open. Bridges are the channels through which assets move between the two networks, and keeping them operating means that users who hold assets on Ethereum can continue to move them to and from Starknet as they do today.
These assurances apply to the research phase and to the proposal as written. Because the work has only begun, nothing in the vote locks in the final architecture, and details about how a standalone chain would interact with Ethereum remain open questions for the working group.
5. How does this fit StarkWare's quantum roadmap?
The vote follows a plan StarkWare made public in June. That roadmap has three phases: upgrading cryptographic components, migrating smart contracts, and addressing the infrastructure that still depends on Ethereum. The layer-1 research is aimed at the third phase, where the dependency on Ethereum's upgrade schedule is hardest to remove.
StarkWare's Quantum Hub says it has tested quantum-resistant technology by processing a transaction on Starknet's live network. The company describes the technology as experimental, and it has not been through a security audit. That caveat is significant, since cryptographic systems typically need independent review before they can be trusted with real value.
Ben-Sasson has set 2027 as the target for making Starknet quantum-resistant. He contrasts that with an Ethereum target of 2029, which he considers too late, arguing that deadlines of this kind tend to slip. Those dates are goals stated by StarkWare, and the gap between them is the core of the company's case for exploring an independent chain.
6. What is a post-quantum blockchain?
A post-quantum blockchain is one designed to stay secure if quantum computers become powerful enough to break the cryptography used today. Most networks rely on digital signatures that prove a user owns a set of funds. A sufficiently capable quantum computer could, in principle, derive private keys from public information, which would let an attacker move funds that belong to someone else.
The response from researchers has been to develop signature schemes and proof systems that are believed to withstand quantum attacks. Hash-based constructions are one such family, and STARK proofs belong to it. Moving an existing network to new schemes is a complex process, because wallets, applications and infrastructure all have to adopt them in a coordinated way.
For a layer-2 network, the task is complicated further by the base layer. If Ethereum has not yet moved to quantum-resistant signatures, assets and messages that pass through it can still be exposed, however carefully the layer-2 itself is designed. That is the specific problem that StarkWare says an independent chain could solve.
The timeline for any such threat is uncertain, and experts disagree about when a quantum computer capable of breaking current signatures might exist. That uncertainty is the reason projects such as StarkWare argue for early preparation: migrating a live network takes years, and waiting for certainty could leave too little time to act.
7. What are the risks and open questions?
Leaving Ethereum as a settlement layer would be a major change for Starknet. Ethereum offers a large base of validators, deep liquidity and a long record of operation, and a new chain would have to build its own security and attract its own participants. The research is meant to weigh those costs against the benefits, and the vote has not settled how the balance falls.
There is also the matter of timing. StarkWare treats the quantum threat as something to prepare for in advance, but the technology is experimental and unaudited, and the plan depends on a series of steps that have not yet occurred: a whitepaper, public review, a formal proposal and a binding vote. Each step can change the shape of the project or end it.
Because Starknet remains a layer-2 for now, users and developers have no immediate action to take. The practical effect of the October 22 result is to set a process in motion instead of changing how the network works today.
Community cohesion is another consideration. A proposal that touches the network's relationship with Ethereum affects developers, application teams and token holders in different ways, and the working group will have to weigh their interests as the designs take shape.
8. What should readers watch next?
The first milestone is the draft whitepaper that StarkWare hopes to publish in November. It will be the earliest detailed look at how an independent Starknet chain might be built, and the community response to it will indicate how much support exists for going further.
After that, the working group's technical proposals will determine whether a binding governance vote is brought forward. No date has been set for such a vote, and the research could conclude that remaining on Ethereum is the better course.
Developers and token holders should also keep an eye on the progress of StarkWare's 2027 quantum-resistance target and on Ethereum's own post-quantum plans, since the distance between the two timelines is the main justification behind the proposal.