Recently, I want to discuss Dusk's development approach from a different perspective.

This project has been pushing the development of DuskDS, Rusk, and DuskEVM. The market always tends to see "EVM compatibility" as an inevitable advantage, but frankly, I now have some reservations. What truly matters is not whether it can be compatible, but a more grounded question: after compatibility, will people use it, is the user experience smooth, and can it be sustained if it is?

To put it simply, the real pressure on DuskEVM is not on the launch day, but three, six, or nine months after going live.

Why do I think this way? Because Dusk's core positioning has never been "another general-purpose EVM chain." Its underlying foundation is DuskDS, which focuses on settlement and finality for financial scenarios, combined with privacy and verifiable mechanisms. Now, integrating EVM essentially means adding a more mainstream execution environment to a system with a somewhat financial-oriented base. It sounds like an "open ecosystem," but in reality, it will raise the system's complexity—transaction types become more diverse, contract calls more complicated, state changes more frequent, developer behavior less controllable, and the attack surface will also expand.

If you see this move merely as "opening the floodgates," then once problems arise after launch, you'll realize: the issue isn't market rejection, but that the system suddenly has to handle a lot more things simultaneously.