#dusk $DUSK @Dusk I opened Dusk’s Core Components page expecting Zedger and Hedger to be older and newer versions of the same privacy system.
They are not.
The page places Zedger directly on Dusk’s native L1 through DuskVM contracts. Its hybrid UTXO/account design was built for regulated assets that need private ownership, compliant transfers, voting, dividends and ownership limits.
Hedger takes another route.
It lives on DuskEVM and combines homomorphic encryption with zero-knowledge proofs. Values can remain encrypted while contracts prove that a transaction is valid, without abandoning Solidity or standard Ethereum tooling.
Then I found the trade-off Dusk states openly: the EVM account model prevents Hedger from providing the full anonymity available through Zedger.
That changes how I read the architecture.
Hedger is not simply better Zedger. It gives up some native-layer anonymity to make confidential finance usable inside an EVM environment.
For a tokenized bond platform already built around Solidity, that compatibility could reduce integration work. For an application needing deeper privacy and direct access to Dusk’s native transaction model, Zedger remains a different path.
Hedger is still on testnet, so its claimed browser proving speed and encrypted workflows still need to prove themselves under real market activity.
Dusk has not chosen one privacy model for everything.
It is keeping native-L1 privacy and EVM privacy separate because developer familiarity and maximum anonymity do not fit neatly inside the same architecture.
They are not.
The page places Zedger directly on Dusk’s native L1 through DuskVM contracts. Its hybrid UTXO/account design was built for regulated assets that need private ownership, compliant transfers, voting, dividends and ownership limits.
Hedger takes another route.
It lives on DuskEVM and combines homomorphic encryption with zero-knowledge proofs. Values can remain encrypted while contracts prove that a transaction is valid, without abandoning Solidity or standard Ethereum tooling.
Then I found the trade-off Dusk states openly: the EVM account model prevents Hedger from providing the full anonymity available through Zedger.
That changes how I read the architecture.
Hedger is not simply better Zedger. It gives up some native-layer anonymity to make confidential finance usable inside an EVM environment.
For a tokenized bond platform already built around Solidity, that compatibility could reduce integration work. For an application needing deeper privacy and direct access to Dusk’s native transaction model, Zedger remains a different path.
Hedger is still on testnet, so its claimed browser proving speed and encrypted workflows still need to prove themselves under real market activity.
Dusk has not chosen one privacy model for everything.
It is keeping native-L1 privacy and EVM privacy separate because developer familiarity and maximum anonymity do not fit neatly inside the same architecture.