#dusk $DUSK $DUSK I’ve been looking at DuskEVM a bit differently lately.
EVM compatibility is one thing, but actually preserving the same execution model while adding privacy and compliance is a much harder problem.
What caught my attention is that Dusk seems to approach this closer to the application and execution layer, rather than treating privacy as an extra feature.
And that made me question how we measure adoption.
A lot of contracts can be deployed and still sit untouched. I’d rather watch for repeated interactions, returning users, and applications people actually keep using.
Maybe privacy-first infrastructure just has a different path to adoption.
I’m still watching the activity. Curious what developers think is the stronger signal: deployments or sustained usage?
EVM compatibility is one thing, but actually preserving the same execution model while adding privacy and compliance is a much harder problem.
What caught my attention is that Dusk seems to approach this closer to the application and execution layer, rather than treating privacy as an extra feature.
And that made me question how we measure adoption.
A lot of contracts can be deployed and still sit untouched. I’d rather watch for repeated interactions, returning users, and applications people actually keep using.
Maybe privacy-first infrastructure just has a different path to adoption.
I’m still watching the activity. Curious what developers think is the stronger signal: deployments or sustained usage?