#dusk $DUSK @Dusk went looking today for why dusk even bothers running two separate execution environments instead of just picking one, and honestly? 😂 the answer turned out to be more of a real tradeoff than a technical flex.
so duskvm is a wasm environment built around wasmtime, and it executes directly on the dusk l1 itself, no settlement hop needed the way duskevm requires through duskds, which i wrote about a while back. its meant for rust contracts that want tighter integration with dusks own transaction models, protocol level assets, and privacy or zk capabilities specifically. duskevm on the other hand exists purely for solidity and standard evm tooling, foundry, hardhat, existing wallets, the whole ethereum ecosystem people already know. dusks own writing actually puts real numbers on why this split matters, apparently a custom bespoke l1 integration can take six to twelve months and cost around fifty times more than a comparable evm deployment, and they point to exchanges specifically spending months adapting to native dusk versus weeks for evm integrations.
what i keep coming back to since reading those numbers is whether that cost gap quietly pushes almost everyone toward duskevm by default, even projects that would technically benefit more from duskvms tighter native privacy integration. if the path of least resistance is that much cheaper and faster, does the harder but more purpose built option end up underused regardless of fit. i havent seen anything addressing that tension directly.
still, giving builders two real paths instead of forcing one compromise model on everyone is a legitimate response to genuinely different needs, not just added complexity for its own sake.
honestly dont know if that cost gap ends up steering most serious projects toward duskevm or if duskvm holds its own for the use cases that actually need it??
🤔
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
so duskvm is a wasm environment built around wasmtime, and it executes directly on the dusk l1 itself, no settlement hop needed the way duskevm requires through duskds, which i wrote about a while back. its meant for rust contracts that want tighter integration with dusks own transaction models, protocol level assets, and privacy or zk capabilities specifically. duskevm on the other hand exists purely for solidity and standard evm tooling, foundry, hardhat, existing wallets, the whole ethereum ecosystem people already know. dusks own writing actually puts real numbers on why this split matters, apparently a custom bespoke l1 integration can take six to twelve months and cost around fifty times more than a comparable evm deployment, and they point to exchanges specifically spending months adapting to native dusk versus weeks for evm integrations.
what i keep coming back to since reading those numbers is whether that cost gap quietly pushes almost everyone toward duskevm by default, even projects that would technically benefit more from duskvms tighter native privacy integration. if the path of least resistance is that much cheaper and faster, does the harder but more purpose built option end up underused regardless of fit. i havent seen anything addressing that tension directly.
still, giving builders two real paths instead of forcing one compromise model on everyone is a legitimate response to genuinely different needs, not just added complexity for its own sake.
honestly dont know if that cost gap ends up steering most serious projects toward duskevm or if duskvm holds its own for the use cases that actually need it??
🤔
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK