Starknet’s community is considering whether to research a move to an independent blockchain designed around post-quantum security. A nonbinding poll introduced in an October 15 governance forum post asks STRK holders whether that direction merits further work; it does not approve a migration away from Ethereum.
The proposal centers on a dependency: Starknet can change parts of its own technology, while components connected to Ethereum remain tied to Ethereum’s security roadmap. An independent base-layer network could give Starknet more control over those choices, but would also require it to address responsibilities currently supported by its relationship with Ethereum.
The forum post says no migration timeline has been set. It also states that STRK would remain the token, with no new token, and that bridges between Ethereum and Starknet would stay open.
A research vote with several possible outcomes
A positive result would start research and lead to more detailed proposals and further polls. A negative result would leave post-quantum work continuing within the existing layer-2 approach. A neutral outcome would keep discussion open until outstanding questions are answered, according to the published process.
That sequence is important for users and developers planning around the network. The present vote does not provide a migration specification, establish a launch date or tell applications to move their contracts. It asks whether the community wants the questions investigated.
The forum describes a seven-day poll. An expression of support during that period should not be mistaken for a completed governance decision on the architecture of a future chain.
Quantum resistance involves more than one component
Starknet’s proposal points to its hash-based STARK proofs and native account abstraction as advantages for adapting security. It also identifies Ethereum-linked components, including the bridge and data availability, as dependencies that follow a different upgrade timeline.
Those are claims about the design and its potential development, rather than proof that every component already meets a complete post-quantum standard. A network’s security depends on the interaction of accounts, bridges, consensus and operational infrastructure. Improving one part does not automatically remove every exposure elsewhere.
The distinction also matters for account access. Our guide to wallet keys and recovery explains the role of signing keys and why control of an account depends on more than the network recording its transactions. Changes to signature systems need to account for how users authorize activity.
Independence would also change the security model
Community responses raise questions about the validator set, finality, data availability and the treatment of existing users. Those concerns go beyond cryptographic algorithms. A standalone chain needs an economic and operational system capable of supporting its own security obligations.
The discussion therefore presents a trade-off for the research phase: more control over upgrades would have to be weighed against the protections and infrastructure supplied through Ethereum. The proposal does not yet provide a final design resolving that trade-off.
For now, the actionable development is the opening of that governance process. STRK holders are being asked to authorize exploration of a possible future architecture, with implementation decisions still ahead.