I thought DuskVM and DuskEVM were basically two ways to build the same thing.
Then I spent some time looking at the actual developer paths and not really.
If you build through DuskVM, you’re much closer to the native @Dusk_Foundation side. Contracts are written in Rust, compiled to WASM and execute directly on the L1. That gives you access to Dusk’s own transaction models and lower-level privacy/ZK features.
DuskEVM feels like the opposite tradeoff.
You get Solidity, Foundry, Hardhat, normal EVM wallets.. basically the tools Ethereum developers already know. But the execution still settles back through DuskDS.
The thing that clicked for me was that isn't really asking builders to choose the better VM.
It is asking what the application actually needs.
If I need direct L1 control, native privacy logic or protocol level execution, DuskVM makes more sense.
If I already have an EVM app and just want a familiar way into the Dusk stack, forcing a Rust rewrite would be unnecessary friction.
So yeah two execution environments looked redundant to me at first.
Now it feels more like Dusk is trying not to make developer compatibility and native control compete with each other.
Same ecosystem, very different entry points.
Curious which side builders will actually choose once more apps start moving in.
$DUSK #dusk
Then I spent some time looking at the actual developer paths and not really.
If you build through DuskVM, you’re much closer to the native @Dusk_Foundation side. Contracts are written in Rust, compiled to WASM and execute directly on the L1. That gives you access to Dusk’s own transaction models and lower-level privacy/ZK features.
DuskEVM feels like the opposite tradeoff.
You get Solidity, Foundry, Hardhat, normal EVM wallets.. basically the tools Ethereum developers already know. But the execution still settles back through DuskDS.
The thing that clicked for me was that isn't really asking builders to choose the better VM.
It is asking what the application actually needs.
If I need direct L1 control, native privacy logic or protocol level execution, DuskVM makes more sense.
If I already have an EVM app and just want a familiar way into the Dusk stack, forcing a Rust rewrite would be unnecessary friction.
So yeah two execution environments looked redundant to me at first.
Now it feels more like Dusk is trying not to make developer compatibility and native control compete with each other.
Same ecosystem, very different entry points.
Curious which side builders will actually choose once more apps start moving in.
$DUSK #dusk