Starknet founder Eli Ben-Sasson has pushed back on the idea that the protocol's potential transition to its own Layer 1 network represents a break from Ethereum, saying the two questions should be treated separately, according to comments reported by BigGo Finance.

The statement addresses one of the more contentious architectural debates in the rollup sector: whether a Layer 2 network that graduates to a standalone Layer 1 chain has effectively abandoned the ecosystem it was built on. Ben-Sasson's position, as reported, is that it hasn't — and that framing the L1 transition as a "divergence from Ethereum" misreads what the change actually involves.

What did the Starknet founder actually say?

Ben-Sasson described the proposed L1 transition as "a separate matter" from any question of departing from Ethereum's roadmap or values, per the BigGo Finance report. The distinction he draws is procedural rather than rhetorical: becoming an L1 is an infrastructure decision about settlement and sequencing, not a political or ideological exit from the Ethereum community.

That framing matters because Starknet, built by StarkWare using zero-knowledge STARK proof technology, has spent its entire history positioned as an Ethereum scaling solution. Any move to sovereign L1 status invites the obvious question of whether the protocol is walking away from that foundation. The founder's answer, on the record, is no.

The report carries his denial in direct terms: the transition is "not a divergence from Ethereum." He did not, according to the available reporting, frame the move as a rejection of Ethereum's approach to scaling or of rollup-centric roadmaps more broadly.

Why does the L1 question keep coming up?

The sector has spent the past year debating the economics and legitimacy of L2s converting to L1s. The argument for is operational: a sovereign chain captures more value, controls its own sequencer economics and doesn't route fees or proof verification to a parent settlement layer. The argument against is alignment: much of an L2's user base and liquidity arrived because of Ethereum's security guarantees.

Starknet sits squarely in that tension. Its validity-rollup design depends on proofs verified on Ethereum today. A transition to standalone L1 status would change where finality comes from, how sequencers are accountable, and what security inheritances users can assume — all operational questions with direct consequences for developers building on the stack.

Ben-Sasson's comments suggest Starknet wants to make that decision on engineering and economic grounds without ceding the alignment argument to critics who would read an L1 move as an ecosystem defection.

What are the practical consequences?

For teams building on Starknet, the founder's framing signals continuity rather than rupture. If the L1 transition proceeds, it would presumably be pitched as an evolution of the same STARK-based architecture rather than a pivot to a different design philosophy.

For Ethereum, the stakes are reputational as much as technical. Every major rollup that goes sovereign weakens the narrative that the rollup-centric roadmap keeps value and users anchored to L1 settlement. Starknet's founder explicitly declining the "divergence" label is an attempt to blunt that reading before it hardens.

The fuller detail of Ben-Sasson's reasoning — including timing, technical specifics and governance steps for any transition — was not contained in the headline report. Watch for follow-up statements from StarkWare, which has a track record of publishing detailed technical rationales when it commits to architectural changes.