When I reviewed Dusk’s architecture again today, I noticed a detail that’s easy to overlook!

Why does Dusk still keep the DuskVM?

After all, we already have DuskEVM now, and developers can directly use more mature tools like Solidity, Vyper, Hardhat, and Foundry. For most applications, EVM compatibility by itself is already quite convenient.

But Dusk didn’t therefore abandon its native execution environment.

DuskVM runs directly on Dusk L1 and is mainly aimed at Rust/WASM contracts. If an application needs direct access to underlying assets, the transaction model, privacy capabilities, or zero-knowledge-related functions, then DuskVM actually offers a more low-level option.

I think what this reflects is Dusk’s clear technical trade-offs.

DuskEVM is about “how to bring more developers in,” while DuskVM is about “when an application truly needs low-level capabilities, can it continue to go further down.”

These two directions don’t conflict.

For ordinary DeFi or tokenized applications, EVM may already be sufficient. But if, in the future, financial markets require more complex asset rules, privacy logic, and settlement needs, developers will need more than just compatibility.

So when looking at Dusk’s dual execution environments now, I’m more inclined to understand it as a long-term infrastructure design, rather than simply adding another EVM.

What’s really worth watching may be how many future applications will start to need the low-level capabilities that DuskVM provides.#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Do you think Dusk’s dual execution environment is necessary?