Content like this must be appreciated 👍
Publier
precious Zarmalaa
·
--
$DUSK @Dusk #dusk
used to assume "EVM-compatible" meant a chain just runs EVM and calls it done.
Dusk doesn't.
i traced what DuskVM actually is: Wasmtime-based, running Rust/WASM contracts directly on Dusk's L1, separate from DuskEVM entirely. that's not a compatibility layer bolted onto EVM — it's a second, independent execution environment sitting beside it.
Hmm.
so why build a whole separate VM instead of just shipping EVM support alone?
kept digging. DuskVM exists specifically for contracts that need direct access to L1 assets, Dusk's native transaction models, privacy, or zero-knowledge capabilities — things EVM's execution model wasn't designed to expose natively. Piecrust, the engine underneath, runs roughly ten times faster than its predecessor, and ships with ZK-friendly host functions — PLONK, Groth16, and BLS — built directly into the runtime.
i checked what DuskEVM covers instead. Full EVM equivalence, standard tooling, settling through DuskDS — the layer for developers who want familiar Solidity workflows without needing privacy-native primitives.
so "native VM instead of EVM alone" isn't really a rejection of EVM. it's Dusk refusing to make privacy-and-ZK-native contracts route through an execution model that was never built to handle them efficiently.
does running two separate execution environments make Dusk more capable, or does it just split developer attention across two systems that do overlapping jobs?
#dusk $DUSK
used to assume "EVM-compatible" meant a chain just runs EVM and calls it done.
Dusk doesn't.
i traced what DuskVM actually is: Wasmtime-based, running Rust/WASM contracts directly on Dusk's L1, separate from DuskEVM entirely. that's not a compatibility layer bolted onto EVM — it's a second, independent execution environment sitting beside it.
Hmm.
so why build a whole separate VM instead of just shipping EVM support alone?
kept digging. DuskVM exists specifically for contracts that need direct access to L1 assets, Dusk's native transaction models, privacy, or zero-knowledge capabilities — things EVM's execution model wasn't designed to expose natively. Piecrust, the engine underneath, runs roughly ten times faster than its predecessor, and ships with ZK-friendly host functions — PLONK, Groth16, and BLS — built directly into the runtime.
i checked what DuskEVM covers instead. Full EVM equivalence, standard tooling, settling through DuskDS — the layer for developers who want familiar Solidity workflows without needing privacy-native primitives.
so "native VM instead of EVM alone" isn't really a rejection of EVM. it's Dusk refusing to make privacy-and-ZK-native contracts route through an execution model that was never built to handle them efficiently.
does running two separate execution environments make Dusk more capable, or does it just split developer attention across two systems that do overlapping jobs?
#dusk $DUSK
Avertissement : ce contenu inclut des opinions de tiers. Il ne constitue pas un conseil. Binance Ai peut être utilisée, sans garantie de résultat. Consultez les CG.