2026-01-09 00:23:34

Dusk is an interesting project because it clearly considers the developer's onboarding experience. It doesn't force everyone to learn new things but instead offers two different difficulty levels.

One is called DuskEVM, designed for developers who want quick deployment—continue using Solidity or Vyper, and use the EVM toolchain as usual, enabling low-cost switching. The other is DuskDS, designed for teams seeking deeper privacy capabilities—write contracts directly in Rust or WASM at the settlement layer, achieving privacy features closer to the protocol layer.

But the key here is to understand what Dusk's privacy mechanism actually is. It's not simply "encrypting your balance," but using models like Phoenix to convert funds into encrypted notes, with each transaction verified through zero-knowledge proofs. This forces you to rethink application design: what information should be kept confidential by default? In what scenarios is "selective disclosure" needed (such as audits or compliance checks)?

If you're working on RWA asset issuance, compliant tokens, or institutional DeFi applications, this combination of "privacy + verifiable disclosure" might be more critical than just pursuing TPS—it directly impacts whether the product can truly be implemented.

A future trend might be that more teams start with DuskEVM to run basic operations, then gradually migrate sensitive asset flows to the more privacy-intensive path. This way, the ecosystem won't fall into a "either-or" narrative but will continue iterating like a real engineering project.

DUSK-15,04%

DEFI-9,02%

RWA6,15%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DefiVeteran

· 01-11 22:32

The design of these two routes is indeed interesting; I agree with reducing migration costs. The RWA part might really be able to get stuck; privacy + verifiable disclosure, this combination, institutions will buy in. As for the Phoenix model, well, it depends on how the actual implementation turns out.

View OriginalReply0

MemecoinTrader

· 01-11 04:05

ngl the dual-track narrative here is straight up psyops genius... watching teams gradually migrate to privacy layers is literally the memetic velocity play we've been waiting for

Reply0

0xSleepDeprived

· 01-09 00:53

Honestly, these two routes are quite practical in design, not the kind of project that just wants to make big news. Wait, Phoenix notes is indeed quite interesting, it's not just about crypto. As for RWA, I think this is where this set truly shines. TPS is meaningless; compliance is the line between life and death.

View OriginalReply0

HodlKumamon

· 01-09 00:52

Ah, finally someone is treating privacy like an engineering project rather than a black-and-white moral drama. The design of the two routes indeed hits the mark, but honestly, most teams might still get stuck at DuskEVM, unable to migrate smoothly. Zero-knowledge proof verification for each transaction sounds appealing, but what about the trade-off between computational cost and complexity? Are there any data, meow? RWA + compliance is indeed a pain point. Compared to hype around hard metrics like TPS, selective disclosure might have more practical value for institutions. But I still want to see what the applications that are truly running in the ecosystem look like; otherwise, even the best design is just armchair strategy.

View OriginalReply0

SerumSquirter

· 01-09 00:49

Thinking about it, this dual-track system is indeed clever, but the actual effectiveness of the Phoenix model still depends on real-world results. --- The RWA part definitely requires a combination of privacy and disclosure, but how many institutions are truly willing to use it? --- I've heard the low-cost switching hype many times, but the key is whether the ecosystem can really take off. --- Selective disclosure sounds good, but I'm worried it will still be troublesome during audits. --- The progressive migration approach is quite good, avoiding black-and-white confrontations and being more practical.

View OriginalReply0

SelfStaking

· 01-09 00:48

This idea is indeed good; the two routes give developers real choices. Wait, the overhead of the zero-knowledge proof in the Phoenix model is huge. Institutional applications truly need this combination of privacy and verifiability; simply increasing TPS doesn't mean much. DuskEVM's move is clever; projects that don't force learning new things tend to last longer. By the way, will this final migration plan be successfully implemented? It always feels like the layered approach could easily turn into "two separate ecosystems." Indeed, the demand for privacy mechanisms in RWA is greater than public chains imagine.

View OriginalReply0

ForkMonger

· 01-09 00:34

ngl the two-path approach is just governance theater if the actual zk implementation has attack vectors nobody's talking about yet. phoenix model sounds clean on paper but where's the real stress testing data? everyone's obsessing over developer experience while missing the protocol economics angle entirely.

Reply0