Should Starknet become an independent post-quantum L1? I've been following the ongoing @Starknet governance vote on whether the network should explore becoming an independent post-quantum L1, and I think there's a much bigger conversation here than simply whether Starknet should leave Ethereum. Personally, I'm in favour of exploring the possibility. But I also think we need to be careful not to confuse technological ambition with a clear security advantage. Here's how I see it. One of the strongest arguments for Starknet becoming an independent L1 is the ability to control its own security roadmap. Today, Starknet operates as an Ethereum L2. This means that even if Starknet successfully makes its own cryptographic components quantum-resistant, some critical parts of its security still depend on Ethereum. For example, Starknet can adopt post-quantum signature schemes through native account abstraction, and its STARK proving system already relies on hash-based cryptographic assumptions. But settlement, data availability, and the Ethereum bridge introduce dependencies that Starknet cannot independently upgrade. So the argument for independence makes sense. Why build a network capable of preparing for a post-quantum future if its security ultimately depends on another network's upgrade timeline? However, there's an equally important question that I don't think should be overlooked. What exactly are we giving up in exchange for that independence? Ethereum provides more than a place for Starknet to settle transactions. It provides an established security infrastructure, a large economic security budget, and an ecosystem that has spent years developing its decentralization and consensus mechanisms. Becoming an independent L1 means Starknet would need to assume responsibility for those things itself. And that is no small undertaking. It's one thing to build a network whose cryptographic assumptions can withstand known quantum attacks. It's another to ensure that the same network is sufficiently decentralized, economically secure, resistant to censorship, and capable of reaching reliable consensus without depending on Ethereum. For the average user, the distinction is simple: being protected against a future quantum attack means very little if the network becomes easier to manipulate or disrupt today. For developers and infrastructure operators, the questions become even more interesting. What would the consensus architecture look like? How would validators participate in securing the network? What happens to existing applications and liquidity? How would bridges be secured, especially when interacting with networks that have not completed their own post-quantum transitions? And perhaps most importantly, can Starknet establish a security model that is demonstrably strong enough to justify moving away from Ethereum? I think these questions deserve rigorous research rather than assumptions. There's also an interesting strategic dimension to this. Starknet has spent years establishing itself as an Ethereum scaling network. Moving toward an independent L1 would represent a significant evolution in its identity, its relationship with Ethereum, and potentially how developers think about building on it. That could create opportunities, but it could also introduce fragmentation and new responsibilities that need to be understood before making such a transition. My position is that Starknet should absolutely research becoming an independent post-quantum L1. But research should not be mistaken for a commitment to migrate. And that's an important distinction in the current vote. A YES vote is a vote to investigate the possibility, not an authorization to leave Ethereum. I would particularly like to see comparative research on the security guarantees of both architectures, the economic cost of operating an independent network, the implications for existing applications, and whether there are intermediate approaches that preserve Ethereum's security advantages while improving Starknet's post-quantum readiness. Because the goal shouldn't simply be to become the first post-quantum L1. It should be to build a network whose security, decentralization, and long-term sustainability can stand up to serious scrutiny. If that research ultimately demonstrates that an independent Starknet is the better architecture, then I think there's a compelling case for pursuing it. But if remaining an Ethereum L2 while progressively strengthening post-quantum security provides better guarantees, that outcome should be equally acceptable. Technology should dictate the direction, not the narrative. And I think the willingness to explore both possibilities, with proper research and community involvement, is what makes this governance discussion worth paying attention to.