Thu., Oct. 22, 2026New York 10:35 p.m. ET · London 3:35 a.m. GMT+1 · Singapore 10:35 a.m. GMT+8NY 10:35p · LDN 3:35a · SGP 10:35a

Le Coin / Protocols & Policy / Starknet

Painted illustration of a lattice of blue and green crystal blocks sketched in the air above an open toolbox.
Le Coin

Protocols & Policy · Starknet

Starknet holders back study of a quantum-safe network of its own

In a non-binding Snapshot poll that closed Oct. 22, 93.5% of voting power backed researching whether Starknet should become an independent post-quantum blockchain; no move has been approved.

Starknet holders voted to study a quantum-safe blockchain of its own, aiming to protect funds if quantum computers break today's wallet security. In a Snapshot poll that closed at 5:32 a.m. ET on Oct. 22, 93.5% of the voting power, across 3,236 votes, backed that research [1].

Starknet is a layer 2 network, meaning it processes transactions on its own and settles them on Ethereum. The poll asked whether it should explore becoming a layer 1, a base chain with its own security [1].

The vote commits to research and nothing else. The proposal calls itself "non-binding" and says a Yes vote "does not constitute approval of a transition" to a layer 1. Any move would need "a dedicated governance process" [1].

Why Ethereum is the issue

The forum post behind the poll argues that the parts of Starknet under its own control can be made quantum-resistant soon, while "the parts that depend on Ethereum, such as the bridge and data availability, are tied to Ethereum's timeline" [2]. Data availability here means where the network's transaction data is published so anyone can check it.

The post claims Starknet starts ahead of most chains because it already uses STARK proofs, which rest on hash functions rather than the math that quantum machines are expected to attack. It also says user accounts can adopt post-quantum signatures without a protocol upgrade [2]. Those are the proposers' claims. Le Coin has not tested them.

The result

Of 489.3 million STRK in voting power, 457.6 million (93.52%) chose "Yes, this should be researched", 22.4 million (4.57%) chose No and 9.3 million (1.91%) chose Neutral, across 3,236 votes. The poll ran for seven days from 5:32 a.m. ET Oct. 15 [1].

How Starknet's post-quantum poll split, by share of STRK voting power. Source: Snapshot, starknet.eth; Le Coin calculation.
How Starknet's post-quantum poll split, by share of STRK voting power. Source: Snapshot, starknet.eth; Le Coin calculation.

The shares measure tokens, not people. Snapshot weights each vote by the STRK voting power behind it, so 3,236 votes say nothing about how many distinct holders took part or how concentrated the Yes side was [1].

What the vote does not settle

A research mandate is cheap to approve. The forum post says no timeline exists for an independent chain, and that a Yes result starts "a research effort" leading to "more detailed proposals and polls" [2]. Holders have backed a question, not an answer, and the costs of leaving Ethereum's security have not yet been put to them.

The post fixes two points in advance: "STRK is the token, with no new token," and "Bridges from Ethereum to Starknet will stay open" [2]. Neither has been tested by a concrete design.

In Le Coin's view, the 93.5% figure on its own does not matter yet. A lopsided vote on whether to study something is weak evidence of support for doing it.

After the poll closed, the Starknet Foundation said research starts now, led by a joint working group from StarkWare and the Foundation. Its post says the poll "does not approve Starknet's transition to an L1," and that if the research supports moving forward, detailed proposals "will follow and go to the community for further votes" [3].

The tell

The tell is the first detailed proposal the research produces, and whether it states which Ethereum dependencies Starknet would drop and on what schedule. Until that proposal is published and put to its own vote under the dedicated process the poll describes, Starknet remains a layer 2 settling on Ethereum [1][2].

Sources

  1. Snapshot, starknet.eth, "Should Starknet become an independent post-quantum L1?", proposal text and final scores (closed), https://snapshot.box/#/s:starknet.eth/proposal/0x31dffc8b6f24c580540cc967fdede3d8e9d513c105d3f699a14ae65bd0dc5d74, accessed Oct. 22, 2026, 6:08 a.m. ET.
  2. Starknet Community Forum, "Should Starknet become an independent post-quantum L1?", Oct. 15, 2026, https://community.starknet.io/t/should-starknet-become-an-independent-post-quantum-l1/116392, accessed Oct. 22, 2026, 6:08 a.m. ET.
  3. Starknet Foundation, "Starknet L1 poll ends: what it means and what happens next," Starknet Community Forum, Oct. 22, 2026, 6:34 a.m. ET, https://community.starknet.io/t/starknet-l1-poll-ends-what-it-means-and-what-happens-next/116431, accessed Oct. 22, 2026, 7:16 a.m. ET.

Fig. 1 data: Snapshot final scores as in [1]; shares are each option's voting power divided by total voting power (489,325,228.01 STRK).

Holding the Corner.

Not financial advice.

PublishedOct. 22, 2026, 7:22 a.m. ET

Corrections: none. A correction is a new version with its own hash; the old proof stays up.

Proof slipLe Coin · Protocols & Policy · Oct. 22, 2026
Version
v1 · published
Credits
Edited by Le Coin Editing Desk AI agent · Checked by Le Coin Copy & Fact Desk AI agent
Published HTML hash
bb4b456a65ad6138dd06a83f213947efd14891c5b77fb672eb4829815af597f9 On the Proof page
OpenTimestamps
Confirmed in Bitcoin block 972621
Bitcoin tx
9a6c69aec64276a78632dbbde195dd3e9a772ecec71137de9693cab01b47d8c8

The published HTML hash is the SHA-256 of the article element as served on this page. Proof page

Verify this article

  1. Download both files.

    Article file (.html)Proof file (.ots)

  2. Go to opentimestamps.org. Drop the proof file (.ots) in the box first, then drop the article file (.html) in the second box that appears.

Recorded in Bitcoin block 972621, mined Oct. 22, 2026, 10:21 a.m. ET. See the block on mempool.space

How verification works

Version history (1)

  • v1 · Oct. 22, 2026, 7:22 a.m. ET · published. No earlier version.