2026-01-17 16:27:21

Each L1 now boasts about how powerful their virtual machine is and how impressive their performance is, but look at who is actually using them? Almost none. The fundamental reason is quite simple—developer ecosystems are not taking off.

Currently, there are probably hundreds of thousands of Solidity developers worldwide. Asking them to switch to Rust or Move? Most simply don't have the bandwidth. Especially in a bear market, project budgets are tight; who would spend money to train their team in a new language?

There's an interesting solution—some privacy public chain directly uses OP Stack to build DuskEVM, fully compatible with the EVM ecosystem. Think about what this means: any Dapp on Ethereum could theoretically migrate seamlessly. Development tools like Hardhat, Truffle, Remix can be used directly, and MetaMask wallets can connect as well. For developers, this drastically reduces costs.

This approach seems conservative but is very smart commercially. Polygon and Arbitrum's success largely stems from EVM compatibility lowering migration barriers.

However, this chain hasn't fully taken a conservative route. It also retains a privacy-first design in DuskVM, running zero-knowledge proof primitives on a WASM virtual machine. This combination is quite innovative—you can quickly deploy regular applications on DuskEVM to attract traffic and funds, then gradually migrate privacy-sensitive parts (like order books or core logic of liquidity pools) to DuskVM. This incremental migration is much more practical than chains that force developers to rewrite all their code at once.

From a cost perspective, the integration cost with EVM is only 1/50 of that of native L1, and development cycles are compressed from six months to a few weeks. This is a major benefit for exchanges, wallets, and custodians—they don't need to develop separate backend systems for this chain; existing Ethereum infrastructure can support it with minor adjustments.

In the current fierce infrastructure competition, this pragmatic approach has become a competitive advantage.

OP-1,67%

ETH-0,49%

ARB-1,91%

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.

20 Likes

Reward
20
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TokenomicsTinfoilHat

· 01-20 13:48

Exactly right, EVM compatibility is indeed a blow to the competition.

View OriginalReply0

tx_pending_forever

· 01-20 04:34

Basically, EVM compatibility is the right path. Those innovative virtual machines will either fail or become second-rate.

View OriginalReply0

ChainPoet

· 01-20 03:20

Exactly right. Those chains hyping up virtual machines are just self-congratulating; developers are not that foolish. EVM compatibility is truly the way to go. Polygon and Arbitrum have already proven that the core idea of this chain is smart. Start by leveraging DuskEVM to attract users, then gradually migrate to privacy logic—this approach is indeed brilliant. Lowering costs to 1/50—who would still bother with Rust? Are they not clear-headed?

View OriginalReply0

bridgeOops

· 01-19 13:48

At the end of the day, it's still an ecosystem issue. Those chains that hype up virtual machines are really a bit funny; without developers, everything is pointless. EVM compatibility is indeed a clever move; Polygon has already proven that this approach works. However, the idea behind this privacy chain is quite interesting—preserving privacy without forcing developers to rewrite their code. Now that's realism. Is the cost really that different? 1/50? If it really were, exchanges would probably have gone crazy long ago. Finally, there's a chain that has figured out what users actually want.

View OriginalReply0

zkProofGremlin

· 01-17 16:57

That's right, no matter how impressive the performance is, without an ecosystem it's all pointless. Polygon has already proven this, and EVM compatibility is the most practical way to reduce migration costs. I think the DuskEVM solution is really clever—paving the way for developers and gradually guiding them toward privacy migration, which is more reliable than chains that force language changes right from the start.

View OriginalReply0

SighingCashier

· 01-17 16:54

You're so right. It's really funny when those L1s boast about virtual machine performance; developers just don't buy it. EVM compatibility is indeed a brilliant move. Polygon has already proven that this approach works. Are there still chains that refuse to learn? I think the DuskEVM idea is pretty good. Gradual migration is more realistic than forcing developers to rewrite from scratch. At least it gives developers a chance to breathe. The figure of reducing costs by 1/50 sounds a bit exaggerated, but if the development cycle is really shortened, it would indeed be good news for wallets and exchanges.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketHustler

· 01-17 16:54

Well said, EVM compatibility is indeed the easiest way, developers are all in on this.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeVictim

· 01-17 16:47

Ultimately, it still has to be considered from a developer's perspective. Chains that only boast performance are really just self-indulgent. The EVM compatibility route is the way smart people go, and Polygon has long proven this logic.

View OriginalReply0

SmartMoneyWallet

· 01-17 16:43

This is the right path; all those non-EVM chains are just digging their own graves. Spending 1/50 of the cost to enable developers to migrate seamlessly—no one struggles with this math problem. In plain terms, only the ones with strong compatibility survive; technically impressive but with a dead ecosystem will be completely淘汰.

View OriginalReply0

DegenDreamer

· 01-17 16:39

That's right, those who hype up virtual machines are just self-indulgent. EVM compatibility is still the most practical, as developers are too lazy to bother with other options.

View OriginalReply0