Something I keep circling back to: Dusk lets you build two ways. Solidity through DuskEVM, or native with Rust and DuskVM directly on L1.
My first read was "fine, more options, more devs." But the more I sit with it, the more it feels like a deliberate hedge rather than just flexibility.
EVM compatibility is for teams who already have something working elsewhere and don't want to rewrite it just to get privacy. Native is for teams building something that needs privacy and compliance baked into the execution layer from day one, not bolted on after.
Those are actually two different bets on who shows up. One says "meet builders where they are." The other says "some applications can't be an afterthought wrapper, they need protocol level control."
I don't know yet which path ends up mattering more for adoption. Maybe neither maybe most teams start on DuskEVM because it's easier, and only move deeper once they hit a wall EVM tooling can't solve.
Curious if anyone's actually shipped on the native side yet, or if it's still mostly theoretical.
$CLO $SOXSB
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK
My first read was "fine, more options, more devs." But the more I sit with it, the more it feels like a deliberate hedge rather than just flexibility.
EVM compatibility is for teams who already have something working elsewhere and don't want to rewrite it just to get privacy. Native is for teams building something that needs privacy and compliance baked into the execution layer from day one, not bolted on after.
Those are actually two different bets on who shows up. One says "meet builders where they are." The other says "some applications can't be an afterthought wrapper, they need protocol level control."
I don't know yet which path ends up mattering more for adoption. Maybe neither maybe most teams start on DuskEVM because it's easier, and only move deeper once they hit a wall EVM tooling can't solve.
Curious if anyone's actually shipped on the native side yet, or if it's still mostly theoretical.
$CLO $SOXSB
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK