I went through the parts in the technical documentation about the dual execution environment again, and found a deeper design.
On the one hand, the official side emphasizes native privacy based on the Phoenix model (Zedger)—achieving protocol-level confidentiality by masking UTXOs and using zero-knowledge proofs. On the other hand, to capture the development momentum in the Ethereum ecosystem, it also rolled out DuskEVM (Hedger), which is compatible with Solidity. However, the official has also admitted in its own technical disclosures: due to the structural limitations of the account model, it’s inherently difficult for the EVM environment to deliver privacy that is as thorough and anonymous as native UTXO at the protocol level.
This puts developers at an awkward crossroads. If you want to take the easy route and rely on a mature EVM toolchain, you have to compromise on the depth of privacy and compliance. But if you want authentic, auditable privacy, you’ll have to dig into the native DuskVM, which has a higher barrier. It’s like trying to have both fish and bear’s paw—you can’t have them without friction in the underlying architecture.
Looking at the logic of node staking and network governance, this split becomes even clearer. The network currently runs on the Succinct Attestation consensus; with just 1,000 tokens staked, an ordinary node can become a validator (Provisioner) to participate in block production. The seemingly “democratic” threshold for block production looks very accessible—but the truly valuable RWA asset channels, NPEX license access, and compliant identity verification are firmly controlled by institutions.
This creates a rather curious situation: retail users stake tokens in a straightforward, permissionless PoS manner to bear the network’s security costs, yet the compliant transaction layer—the one that actually generates cash flow and high premiums—has access rules and revenue distribution that follow the playbook of traditional investment banks. How will these two layers of logic form a closed loop in capturing token value in the future?
The compliance narrative is certainly sexy, and Europe’s MiCA framework also does open up a lot of imagination for compliant chains. But in my view, simply having a few ZK proofs running at the base layer is nowhere near enough. If developers in the ecosystem can’t find a balance between EVM compatibility and native privacy, and if ordinary token holders can only stand outside the chain and watch institutions play with privileged channels, then these technical advantages are unlikely to organically convert into sustained on-chain vitality.
I’ll continue to track its technical progress, but before putting real money down, I need to pull out the barbs in the logic first.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $ETH
On the one hand, the official side emphasizes native privacy based on the Phoenix model (Zedger)—achieving protocol-level confidentiality by masking UTXOs and using zero-knowledge proofs. On the other hand, to capture the development momentum in the Ethereum ecosystem, it also rolled out DuskEVM (Hedger), which is compatible with Solidity. However, the official has also admitted in its own technical disclosures: due to the structural limitations of the account model, it’s inherently difficult for the EVM environment to deliver privacy that is as thorough and anonymous as native UTXO at the protocol level.
This puts developers at an awkward crossroads. If you want to take the easy route and rely on a mature EVM toolchain, you have to compromise on the depth of privacy and compliance. But if you want authentic, auditable privacy, you’ll have to dig into the native DuskVM, which has a higher barrier. It’s like trying to have both fish and bear’s paw—you can’t have them without friction in the underlying architecture.
Looking at the logic of node staking and network governance, this split becomes even clearer. The network currently runs on the Succinct Attestation consensus; with just 1,000 tokens staked, an ordinary node can become a validator (Provisioner) to participate in block production. The seemingly “democratic” threshold for block production looks very accessible—but the truly valuable RWA asset channels, NPEX license access, and compliant identity verification are firmly controlled by institutions.
This creates a rather curious situation: retail users stake tokens in a straightforward, permissionless PoS manner to bear the network’s security costs, yet the compliant transaction layer—the one that actually generates cash flow and high premiums—has access rules and revenue distribution that follow the playbook of traditional investment banks. How will these two layers of logic form a closed loop in capturing token value in the future?
The compliance narrative is certainly sexy, and Europe’s MiCA framework also does open up a lot of imagination for compliant chains. But in my view, simply having a few ZK proofs running at the base layer is nowhere near enough. If developers in the ecosystem can’t find a balance between EVM compatibility and native privacy, and if ordinary token holders can only stand outside the chain and watch institutions play with privileged channels, then these technical advantages are unlikely to organically convert into sustained on-chain vitality.
I’ll continue to track its technical progress, but before putting real money down, I need to pull out the barbs in the logic first.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $ETH