#dusk $DUSK
After digging deeper into Dusk’s underlying design, I finally figured out the real reason it sticks with WASM and gives up EVM.
To be honest, like most people, I previously assumed it was just that the team had a bit of technical purity—didn’t want to follow the crowd and get pulled into the EVM arms race.
But the more I read the materials, the more it became clear: it’s not really like that.
It never intended to go after DeFi developers and ordinary on-chain users on mainstream public chains. The ultimate goal of $DUSK is to connect with traditional brokerage, asset management, and custody institutions—those traditional finance teams.
In our circles, it’s taken for granted that Solidity is a necessity, a standard requirement.
But for the technical teams at traditional finance firms, what they’ve been using for years is Rust and C++, along with a whole set of risk-control, compliance, and asset clearing systems that have been in place for decades and are already fully standardized.
Getting them to scrap everything, learn Solidity from scratch, and rewrite all business logic is basically unrealistic—and the migration cost would be frighteningly high.
So I understand why they chose WASM: it’s to accommodate traditional institutions.
You don’t need to refactor the code or switch the tech stack. The existing mature compliance modules and risk-control logic can be compiled and deployed on-chain directly.
That’s the biggest hidden advantage Dusk has for integrating traditional RWA.
That said, I’ll be honest—I personally still feel pretty conflicted about this choice.
The WASM ecosystem is really too immature right now. There are few tools, few audit cases, and even the modules that are actually usable are scarce.
For us crypto-native developers, the experience just can’t compare to the maturity of the EVM.
This leads to a rather awkward situation:
In order to bet on future institutional adoption, they’ve directly given up the current on-chain ecosystem momentum.
If, later on, traditional finance deployments take too long and don’t attract new developers,
then the differentiation advantage they have now could easily turn into a closed-off ecosystem—an isolated island.
In my view, Dusk’s WASM strategy is essentially sacrificing short-term hype to build long-term wall barriers.
So, what do you all think? Is this bet worth it?
@Dusk_Foundation
After digging deeper into Dusk’s underlying design, I finally figured out the real reason it sticks with WASM and gives up EVM.
To be honest, like most people, I previously assumed it was just that the team had a bit of technical purity—didn’t want to follow the crowd and get pulled into the EVM arms race.
But the more I read the materials, the more it became clear: it’s not really like that.
It never intended to go after DeFi developers and ordinary on-chain users on mainstream public chains. The ultimate goal of $DUSK is to connect with traditional brokerage, asset management, and custody institutions—those traditional finance teams.
In our circles, it’s taken for granted that Solidity is a necessity, a standard requirement.
But for the technical teams at traditional finance firms, what they’ve been using for years is Rust and C++, along with a whole set of risk-control, compliance, and asset clearing systems that have been in place for decades and are already fully standardized.
Getting them to scrap everything, learn Solidity from scratch, and rewrite all business logic is basically unrealistic—and the migration cost would be frighteningly high.
So I understand why they chose WASM: it’s to accommodate traditional institutions.
You don’t need to refactor the code or switch the tech stack. The existing mature compliance modules and risk-control logic can be compiled and deployed on-chain directly.
That’s the biggest hidden advantage Dusk has for integrating traditional RWA.
That said, I’ll be honest—I personally still feel pretty conflicted about this choice.
The WASM ecosystem is really too immature right now. There are few tools, few audit cases, and even the modules that are actually usable are scarce.
For us crypto-native developers, the experience just can’t compare to the maturity of the EVM.
This leads to a rather awkward situation:
In order to bet on future institutional adoption, they’ve directly given up the current on-chain ecosystem momentum.
If, later on, traditional finance deployments take too long and don’t attract new developers,
then the differentiation advantage they have now could easily turn into a closed-off ecosystem—an isolated island.
In my view, Dusk’s WASM strategy is essentially sacrificing short-term hype to build long-term wall barriers.
So, what do you all think? Is this bet worth it?
@Dusk_Foundation