Starknet poll backs research into independent L1, not a move from Ethereum
Starknet voters have backed further research into an independent, post-quantum-resistant blockchain. They have not approved leaving Ethereum. The seven-day poll was non-binding and authorized an investigation, not a migration.
- 93.52% of voting power supported further research, with approximately 3, 200 votes recorded.
- The poll closed October 22, after StarkWare’s October 8 proposal.
- StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation are assessing what an independent network would require.
- StarkWare has set a 2027 quantum-resistance target, but the scope and remaining technical work still matter.
A mandate to investigate, not to leave
The result is the first formal community response to StarkWare’s proposal to study making Starknet an independent layer-1 blockchain. Voters could support the research, oppose it, or stay neutral while waiting for more information. StarkWare abstained, leaving STRK holders and participating delegates to decide the outcome.
Starknet currently operates as an Ethereum layer-2 network. It processes transactions using its own infrastructure and STARK proofs, while relying on Ethereum for settlement and for parts of its data availability and cross-chain infrastructure. Data availability means participants can access the information needed to verify transactions and the network’s state.
An independent layer-1 would set up its own base-layer arrangements instead of relying on Ethereum in the same way. That would be a major architectural change, not just a new label. Starknet would need to decide how its network reaches consensus, how validators take part, how data stays available, and how transactions are secured.
No final architecture or complete replacement security model has been published. A strong vote for research shows interest in exploring the option. It does not prove that independence is feasible, safer, or better than staying on Ethereum.
What quantum security has to do with it
StarkWare’s proposal is partly about preparing for sufficiently powerful quantum computers in the future. The concern is that some cryptographic systems used by blockchains could eventually be vulnerable. This is a long-term preparation effort, not evidence that Starknet or Ethereum faces an immediate security breach.
Starknet’s STARK proof system relies on hash-based cryptography rather than the elliptic-curve assumptions used by some other systems. This avoids certain quantum vulnerabilities, but it does not make every part of Starknet quantum-resistant. Wallet signatures, state commitments, bridge messaging, and data availability all affect the network’s security. Hash-based cryptography also has security margins that must be assessed against quantum algorithms. “Hash-based” does not mean “quantum-proof.”
StarkWare’s roadmap sets out work across several components. The first phase targets selected uses of Pedersen hashing, including parts of the state commitment trie, contract-address derivation, and the operating-system configuration hash. The plan is to replace these with BLAKE2-based alternatives. This is a targeted change, not a replacement for every hash function Starknet uses.
Further work covers storage and migration requirements for existing contracts, along with infrastructure linked to Ethereum. Technical reporting by Quantum Computing Report points to two notable dependencies: Starknet’s Ethereum bridge messaging framework, which includes elliptic-curve-based system calls, and blob data availability, where Ethereum uses KZG commitments. These could pose future quantum-security concerns, but they are not confirmed vulnerabilities affecting users today.
Some work on Ethereum’s bridge and blob infrastructure depends on cryptographic upgrades to Ethereum itself. That makes the case for independence more complicated. A standalone network could give Starknet more control over security upgrades, but it would also have to build and maintain its own alternatives. Independence does not eliminate security assumptions. It changes which systems and participants the network must trust.
What happens next?
StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation have formed a working group to assess the technical and operational requirements. A draft whitepaper is planned for November, though no year has been specified. Launching an independent network would require another governance process.
StarkWare has set 2027 as its target for making Starknet quantum-resistant. That is a roadmap goal, not a guarantee that every component will be protected by then. The work covers several parts of the system, and some changes depend on Ethereum’s own upgrades.
The proposal does not call for a replacement token. Current plans expect STRK to remain Starknet’s native token. Existing Starknet, Ethereum bridges are also expected to remain available, but detailed plans for operating them under a standalone architecture have not been published. Users have received no migration instructions, and none should be inferred from this poll.
The next meaningful test is whether the technical work can explain how an independent Starknet would secure consensus, data availability, and censorship resistance, and what role validators and staked STRK would play. Until those details are clear, the vote is best read as permission to investigate a consequential option, not a decision to take it.
Key questions and answers
-
Did Starknet vote to leave Ethereum?
No. The non-binding poll supported research into an independent layer-1. A separate governance decision would be needed before any transition.
-
What does the 93.52% figure measure?
It is the reported share of voting power in favor of further research. Approximately 3, 200 votes were recorded, and the poll closed October 22.
-
Why consider an independent network?
It could give Starknet more control over security upgrades. The network would also need its own arrangements for consensus, data availability, and transaction security.
-
Is all of Starknet already quantum-resistant?
No. STARK proofs avoid certain elliptic-curve assumptions, but StarkWare has identified other components, including selected uses of hashing and Ethereum-linked infrastructure, that need further work.
-
Will STRK be replaced?
No replacement has been proposed. Current plans expect STRK to remain the native token, though that is not a finalized design for an independent network.
-
When could Starknet become independent?
No binding timetable has been published. A working group is assessing the requirements, and another governance process would be needed before a launch decision. Further changes may depend on Ethereum’s own upgrades.
