I just finished lunch and was about to take a nap. Before sleeping, I'll write a post about Starknet. I've been thinking about something lately: a chain wants to change its security system, but has to wait for another chain to act first—that doesn't feel right. @Starknet is currently Ethereum L2. Its STARK proofs are hash-based, not relying on assumptions like elliptic curves; the native account abstraction also allows accounts to change their signature verification methods. The parts it can modify do offer some flexibility. However, bridging, message passing, and the blobs used for submitting state differences (involving Ethereum's KZG) are still tied to Ethereum. On October 22nd, the community voted, with 93.52% of the votes supporting continued research into an independent L1. This doesn't mean a decision to leave has been made; it's just a matter of clarifying the issues first. What I'm more concerned about is, if an urgent change in cryptographic scheme is needed, who controls the upgrade timeline? Going independent might give more autonomy, but it also means answering more difficult questions like how to organize validators, how to implement DA, and how to migrate existing assets and applications. It's still in the research stage, and StarkWare plans to release a draft white paper in November. I'm more interested to see how they balance the regained upgrade freedom with the added security costs.