Starknet token holders have opened a seven-day governance vote on whether the Ethereum Layer 2 should research a future transition into an independent Layer 1 blockchain, a proposal that would give the network greater control over security upgrades as quantum-computing threats develop.
The non-binding Snapshot poll had received 177.6 million STRK votes at publication, with 99.91% supporting the “Yes” option. Approval would not trigger an immediate separation from Ethereum. Instead, it would authorize research, technical planning and subsequent governance proposals before any architectural change could be adopted.
A rejection would leave Starknet’s post-quantum security work focused on its present Layer 2 design, which settles transactions on Ethereum.
Vote centers on control over cryptographic upgrades
StarkWare, the developer behind Starknet, outlined the Layer 1 concept on Oct. 8. Its governance materials argue that quantum resilience depends on more than the cryptography used inside Starknet itself. The network also relies on Ethereum for components including its bridge and parts of its data-availability framework, placing upgrades to those systems on Ethereum’s development and governance timetable.
An independent chain could allow Starknet to set its own rules for validating transactions, securing bridges and changing cryptographic standards. Such a move would also replace the economic-security relationship that currently comes from Ethereum settlement with a security model designed and maintained by Starknet’s own community and developers.
Eli Ben-Sasson, chief executive officer of StarkWare, said preparation for potential quantum threats involves both selecting suitable cryptography and retaining the ability to replace it as standards evolve. For Starknet, that flexibility could eventually include a transition to Layer 1, according to the company’s public comments.
The proposal does not put a date on such a transition or claim Starknet can become fully quantum-safe on a fixed schedule. StarkWare said components directly controlled by the network could be upgraded sooner than systems that depend on Ethereum infrastructure.
Starknet already has elements of post-quantum design
The governance proposal says Starknet uses STARK proofs, a class of cryptographic proof built with hash functions rather than elliptic-curve cryptography. Hash-based systems are generally regarded as more resistant to the types of attacks a sufficiently capable quantum computer could carry out against current public-key signatures.
Starknet accounts can also adopt post-quantum signature schemes without requiring a network-wide protocol upgrade, according to the proposal. That gives wallet developers and users a path to begin changing account security before every dependency in the wider system is updated.
The remaining exposure is concentrated in links between Starknet and Ethereum. A bridge must securely recognize deposits, withdrawals and proof-related messages across two networks. If the bridge’s underlying cryptographic assumptions require changes, Starknet cannot unilaterally alter Ethereum’s corresponding systems.
Data availability presents a similar issue. Layer 2 networks commonly publish transaction data or commitments to Ethereum so that users can reconstruct the chain’s state and exit if necessary. Those arrangements provide the security benefits associated with Ethereum settlement, but they also tie parts of a Layer 2’s upgrade path to Ethereum.
The current vote therefore concerns a trade-off rather than a simple software update. Remaining a Layer 2 preserves Starknet’s existing relationship with Ethereum’s settlement and security infrastructure. Becoming a Layer 1 would give Starknet more direct authority over its technical roadmap while requiring the network to operate under a more self-contained security and economic model.
Privacy tools arrive alongside the governance debate
The governance discussion comes as StarkWare introduces new privacy-oriented features on Starknet. Earlier this week, the company announced Shadow Accounts, an STRK20 privacy primitive intended to give users persistent pseudonymous identities when interacting with decentralized applications.
Shadow Accounts are designed to let a user maintain a position or application identity without publicly connecting that activity to the wallet used for funding or other on-chain activity. The feature could be useful for users who want to avoid exposing a complete map of their interactions across lending protocols, trading applications or other smart contracts.
The tool does not make Starknet’s public ledger confidential. Transaction values, token movements and smart-contract calls can remain observable on-chain, depending on the application’s design. Its focus is preventing straightforward linkage between a user’s main address and a separate persistent identity used within an application.
That distinction limits the privacy claims developers can make around the feature. Pseudonymity can reduce address-level correlation, while confidential transactions require additional technology that hides amounts or transaction details from public view.
Approval would begin a longer governance process
Snapshot votes are commonly used to measure token-holder sentiment through signed wallet messages rather than on-chain transactions. The current poll gives the Starknet community an early decision on whether to devote work to the Layer 1 option; it does not itself deploy code, alter the bridge or change how Starknet settles transactions.
If the vote passes, later proposals would need to address the practical questions left open by the initial mandate. These include the proposed consensus design, the role of STRK in securing a standalone network, bridge arrangements for assets and applications, data-availability architecture, and a migration path for existing users.
Those decisions would determine whether the idea develops into a viable network redesign or remains a research direction. For now, the unusually strong early support shows that participating STRK holders favor examining a route that could give Starknet more autonomy over cryptographic security upgrades, even as its current network remains anchored to Ethereum.
Exploring Starknet’s Layer 1 future? Deepen your understanding of scalability with this guide to Layer 2 blockchains.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
