I was lat how Dusk handles smart contracts and one thing caught me off guard, the network is not trying to make every developer follow the same execution model. There is native WASM execution through Piecrust, while @Dusk also gives Solidity developers another route through DuskEVM.
A financial application does not always have the same requirements as a normal DeFi app. Some developers may want the control of the native environment, while others already have years of Solidity code and tooling they would rather not throw away. Dusk seems to be leaving both doors open instead of forcing everything through one stack.
The part I find harder to judge is whether that flexibility actually helps adoption or just creates another decision developers have to make before building. More options are useful, but only if developers clearly understand when each environment makes sense.
That probably matters more than simply having an EVM layer. A chain can make development familiar and still struggle to attract applications that people actually use.
Would you rather build directly with Piecrust, or take the easier route through Solidity and DuskEVM?
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk