I keep thinking about Dusk's use of native host functions for expensive operations.
On paper, the logic is straightforward. Move heavy computation out of WebAssembly, execute it more efficiently in the host environment, and reduce some of the overhead along the way.
But making one part of the execution path faster does not automatically make the whole workload faster by the same amount. That matters as Dusk pushes to bring financial markets onchain with EU-licensed institutions, where the architecture eventually has to perform under real workloads, not just look efficient on paper. What I don't know yet is whether Dusk's host-function design removes a bottleneck that actually dominates real workloads, or mainly speeds up work that turns out to be a smaller part of total execution.
The details worth watching are which operations move out of WASM, how much faster they become, and how much of a representative Dusk workload those operations account for.
The architecture gives a good reason to expect an improvement. That is weaker evidence than seeing the same kind of workload produce a material, repeatable gain in practice.
I'd care less about the theoretical speedup of one primitive than about how much it changes the performance of the workload Dusk actually runs.
The question is whether Dusk has removed a real system bottleneck, or simply accelerated one part of the path without moving overall performance very far.
I am watching for Dusk-specific benchmarks that isolate the host-function gain and show how much it matters at workload level.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
On paper, the logic is straightforward. Move heavy computation out of WebAssembly, execute it more efficiently in the host environment, and reduce some of the overhead along the way.
But making one part of the execution path faster does not automatically make the whole workload faster by the same amount. That matters as Dusk pushes to bring financial markets onchain with EU-licensed institutions, where the architecture eventually has to perform under real workloads, not just look efficient on paper. What I don't know yet is whether Dusk's host-function design removes a bottleneck that actually dominates real workloads, or mainly speeds up work that turns out to be a smaller part of total execution.
The details worth watching are which operations move out of WASM, how much faster they become, and how much of a representative Dusk workload those operations account for.
The architecture gives a good reason to expect an improvement. That is weaker evidence than seeing the same kind of workload produce a material, repeatable gain in practice.
I'd care less about the theoretical speedup of one primitive than about how much it changes the performance of the workload Dusk actually runs.
The question is whether Dusk has removed a real system bottleneck, or simply accelerated one part of the path without moving overall performance very far.
I am watching for Dusk-specific benchmarks that isolate the host-function gain and show how much it matters at workload level.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk