Starknet is building for the future Quantum resistance and programmable accounts are a powerful combo for long-term security.
Elixir retweeted
Crypto鈥檚 gotta keep evolving because the threats don鈥檛 just sit still.
Most of the space is still talking post quantum like it鈥檚 some far-off patch, but @Starknet already built different.
Their STARK proofs verify computation with hash functions instead of the elliptic curve stuff quantum computers actually target.
Hashes don鈥檛 fold the same way under Shor鈥檚, so the proving layer was never sitting on the weak foundation everyone else is dealing with.
Pair that with native account abstraction and every account is programmable.
You can upgrade your own signature logic to better schemes whenever they drop...just a contract change on your end, no hard fork or network wide upgrade required. You move when you鈥檙e ready.
They鈥檙e also seriously looking at going independent L1 so they control core upgrades themselves instead of waiting on Ethereum鈥檚 migration timeline.
That鈥檚 how you stay in charge of the pace when things start getting weird.
Full status lives in the Quantum hub: quantum.starkware.co/
Elixir retweeted
Different angles. Same Hueman.
I picked Cobalt from @Huemans_rh.
Explore the collection and find your angle.
teapawt.net/Huemans_rh
Elixir retweeted
It鈥檚 a no brainer that @Enter_Elysium mainnet will be launching in November.
The first NFT that you need to look out for is @Elyziumaa
Mint price was 0.1 hype on testnet.
Peep the floor on @kalosfun
Missed out on the mint and I鈥檓 hoping to secure one before mainnet.
A VERIFIED badge means little without transparent rules behind it. Verifiable logic and independent audits are what turn proof into real trust.
Elixir retweeted
My favorite financial red flag?
A green VERIFIED badge with no explanation.
While digging into @primus_labs' Proof of Reserves architecture, I found something worth discussing.
Imagine an exchange reports $50M in assets.
zkTLS helps verify that the balance data came from the real exchange.
A TEE protects sensitive information during processing.
Then a zkVM proves the reported total was calculated according to the specified program.
That's considerably better than trusting a screenshot.
But here's the catch.
Correct computation doesn't automatically mean correct financial logic.
Suppose the program values collateral using an outdated price.
The arithmetic could be flawless.
Congratulations. You've built an extremely honest calculator following questionable instructions.
That's why I'd love to see @primus_labs make program versions, valuation rules, and verification timestamps easy for independent auditors to inspect.
Privacy should protect sensitive financial data, not hide how financial conclusions are reached.
So here's my question:
Can independent auditors verify not just the result, but the rules that produced it?
Because in institutional finance, verification should start the conversation, not end it.
Explore Primus XP:
s.kaito.ai/cH5O9qE