Will 2027 be the year to become a quantum-resistant network? Starknet's bet on going solo as L1.

Written by: Bankless

Translated by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

Will breakthroughs in quantum computing and AI render on-chain cryptography obsolete ahead of schedule? This question was reignited by Justin Drake's comments on "bunker mode." Starknet subsequently presented a more concrete action: considering the transition from Ethereum L2 to an independent L1, with the goal of becoming the first fully quantum-resistant network by 2027.

The reasoning is straightforward: as L2, its quantum upgrade speed is hindered by Ethereum.

Under the dual shadows of quantum and AI, Drake calls for "bunker mode"

On October 7, Justin Drake urged the blockchain industry to calmly initiate "bunker mode" planning. His personal suggestion is to systematically promote the large-scale migration of assets to new addresses, keeping public keys hidden behind hashes, starting with big holders.

Whether these judgments underestimate or overestimate the timeline of mathematical breakthroughs is something only time will tell. However, both quantum and AI threats are real and not distant abstract risks. Some crypto projects take them more seriously than others.

Starknet is one of them. Last week, its developers announced they are considering moving the chain from Ethereum L2 to independent L1, drawing attention. On October 8, Starknet's official Twitter stated: "We are actively considering becoming L1." The official announcement claimed this would make Starknet the first fully quantum-resistant network, aiming for 2027.

On the same day, StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson posed the question: Is it a good idea or a bad idea for Starknet to become L1 in exchange for post-quantum agility? He pointed out two crucial things to focus on: the quantum threat may be much closer than imagined; AI is advancing faster than we can handle.

On October 11, he further explained: Q-Day has always been a serious threat, and now with AI, the timeline will shift. The logic is that if Starknet becomes L1, it can set its own pace for security upgrades rather than following Ethereum.

Why Starknet's quantum timeline is hindered as L2

Why is it impossible to achieve the goal while remaining L2? The roadmap from June 30 explains the reasons.

Starknet's quantum migration involves three phases. The first two phases are carried out by Starknet itself: replacing the Pedersen hash with quantum-resistant BLAKE2, adding post-quantum signatures like Falcon-512, and migrating legacy contracts. The third phase is beyond its control because it involves two components borrowed from Ethereum.

The first is bridge messages. It uses elliptic curve calls that are vulnerable to quantum attacks when transmitting messages between the two chains. StarkWare stated plainly: removing these calls before the Ethereum migration will disrupt the cross-chain bridge.

The second is Blob data. Starknet publishes state data to Ethereum through Blobs, which are anchored by elliptic curve-based KZG commitments. If KZG is compromised, according to StarkWare, it affects data availability, not the reliability of Starknet's state itself—the latter is still protected by STARK proofs. However, the June roadmap left this fix entirely to Ethereum.

Ethereum may still need a few more years to complete its post-quantum evolution. This means the critical components in Starknet's defense roadmap may have to remain frozen for that duration.

This is not just a Starknet issue. Rollups inherit L1's cryptography and its security model, so their quantum timeline effectively depends on who is slower, themselves or L1.

Starknet anticipates that it will hit this wall because it can speed up its half of the work much more.

Ethereum's quantum roadmap is increasingly resembling Starknet

Interestingly, Ethereum's own quantum plans are making it look more like Starknet.

For instance, Ethereum is advancing EIP-8141, which includes provisions to allow accounts to adopt quantum-safe signatures on their own timeline without waiting for the entire network to migrate. Starknet has been doing native account abstraction for years—each account is a programmable smart contract. Thus, S2morrow can already build post-quantum Starknet accounts around Falcon-512 signatures without protocol changes.

Ethereum also plans to replace BLS validator signatures with hash-based leanXMSS and use leanVM to compress more bulky results through zk proofs. Among the KZG alternatives it listed, STARK-based commitments are also among the leading candidates. STARK is inherently hash-based, which is exactly what the "Stark" in Starknet signifies.

In recent years, Starknet has managed to piece together many of the components required to become L1: STRK staking, multi-sorters, and so on. These were originally meant to make Starknet a better decentralized scaling solution for Ethereum, but they have indeed narrowed down the "L1 problem" considerably.

Currently, the main gaps are threefold: data availability, which refers to where transaction data is published, allowing anyone to reconstruct the chain; final settlement; and the on-demand modification of the official bridge.

The most critical open question: should it still connect back to Ethereum?

Speaking of bridges, take a look at how today's StarkGate withdrawals work: funds are released only when Ethereum verifies the proof of the withdrawal block and the corresponding state updates have landed on Ethereum. In other words, Ethereum checks Starknet's mathematical proofs, so Starknet operators cannot forge the state that bridging funds depend on.

Once Starknet becomes L1, it can fall anywhere between the trust model of "relying on Ethereum verification" to "complete independence": either continue to submit STARK proofs to Ethereum, supporting a minimally trusted bridge; or become fully independent. These two options correspond to completely different trust models and are open questions that I will closely watch.

Don't forget, Starknet has always stated that it can settle simultaneously on both Bitcoin and Ethereum in the future. However, this does not mean it has to leave Ethereum. If it becomes L1 and proves to connect and bridge the two chains simultaneously, it aligns more with its original vision rather than deviating from it.

No official announcement yet, but the direction is clear

No formal transition has been initiated, but the L1 architecture seems to be the direction Starknet is moving toward. In any case, this chain wants to act quickly because there may be no "later" for projects that do not adjust in time.

This judgment stands strong.