#dusk $DUSK
DuskVM Compared to DuskEVM on the DUSK Network
@Dusk_Foundation At first I figured picking between DuskVM and DuskEVM came down to language, Rust and WASM versus Solidity with the EVM tooling everyone's already used to. Spent longer on this tonight than expected, and somewhere in there it stopped looking like a language choice at all.
DuskVM sits right at the base of the network, so it gets straight access to the privacy and zero-knowledge stuff Dusk is actually built around. DuskEVM runs Solidity contracts through standard EVM tooling, but still settles and publishes its data back through the same DuskDS layer, paying gas in the same DUSK token either way. That's an odd symmetry I keep coming back to, different execution paths, same settlement, same token underneath both.
Choosing DuskVM isn't just choosing a language, it's choosing proximity to the privacy primitives themselves. Choosing DuskEVM isn't just familiarity, it's distance from those primitives for tooling most developers already know. That's a subtle friction most comparisons skip past. #dusk
There's a third layer under both that I keep landing back on. Dusk's docs confirm DuskEVM lets existing EVM wallets, bridges, and exchanges plug in with barely any code changes, quicker than a native integration would take. DuskVM offers no equivalent shortcut. Tooling has to be built for it, from nothing, every time. $DUSK
Feature parity between the two isn't guaranteed just because both settle through the same layer and share a gas token. What looks like optionality on the surface is really two different bets on where the actual cost gets paid, up front in tooling, or later in what the environment can't do.
Is Dusk actually offering builders a choice here, or just deciding for them where the friction shows up? @Dusk
DuskVM Compared to DuskEVM on the DUSK Network
@Dusk_Foundation At first I figured picking between DuskVM and DuskEVM came down to language, Rust and WASM versus Solidity with the EVM tooling everyone's already used to. Spent longer on this tonight than expected, and somewhere in there it stopped looking like a language choice at all.
DuskVM sits right at the base of the network, so it gets straight access to the privacy and zero-knowledge stuff Dusk is actually built around. DuskEVM runs Solidity contracts through standard EVM tooling, but still settles and publishes its data back through the same DuskDS layer, paying gas in the same DUSK token either way. That's an odd symmetry I keep coming back to, different execution paths, same settlement, same token underneath both.
Choosing DuskVM isn't just choosing a language, it's choosing proximity to the privacy primitives themselves. Choosing DuskEVM isn't just familiarity, it's distance from those primitives for tooling most developers already know. That's a subtle friction most comparisons skip past. #dusk
There's a third layer under both that I keep landing back on. Dusk's docs confirm DuskEVM lets existing EVM wallets, bridges, and exchanges plug in with barely any code changes, quicker than a native integration would take. DuskVM offers no equivalent shortcut. Tooling has to be built for it, from nothing, every time. $DUSK
Feature parity between the two isn't guaranteed just because both settle through the same layer and share a gas token. What looks like optionality on the surface is really two different bets on where the actual cost gets paid, up front in tooling, or later in what the environment can't do.
Is Dusk actually offering builders a choice here, or just deciding for them where the friction shows up? @Dusk