Recently spent quite some time tinkering on the DuskEVM testnet, purely out of curiosity about the "compliance + privacy" route. I wanted to see what kind of balance a public chain can find between privacy protection and regulatory friendliness.
First, let's talk about the real experience. Connecting to the testnet is not difficult—just add an RPC configuration in MetaMask (Chain ID 745), and it’s ready to use immediately. Deploying smart contracts, transferring funds, and other basic operations run smoothly, with block confirmation delays basically at the second level, and gas costs are nearly negligible. The technical foundation here is indeed solid.
What’s more interesting is the dual-mode design. In Phoenix mode, transaction information is encrypted—you can’t see the amount or the counterparty, only the transaction hash and ZK zero-knowledge proof—this layer of privacy protection is truly effective. Moonlight maintains an open ledger logic, with both modes running in parallel, allowing users to choose based on their needs. This design approach is quite rare in the industry and also very considerate.
But real-world problems are also evident. The testnet ecosystem is somewhat cold—active applications are few, and most addresses found in the explorer are traces of internal testing. This stands in stark contrast to Dusk’s grand goal of serving RWA assets worth hundreds of millions of euros. To put it plainly, institutions simply wouldn’t participate with real funds in an environment without genuine licensing backing or risk isolation—there’s a huge gap between testing enthusiasm and institutional trust.
This is also why DuskTrade paired with projects like NPEX, which are actually on-chain, is so important for Dusk. Good technical indicators alone are not enough; real business scenarios are needed to validate. Dusk’s accumulation of compliance licenses and its choice of EVM compatibility theoretically lay the foundation for these applications. But from the current state of the testnet, there’s still a lot of work to do from concept to large-scale real-world application.
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
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
RunWhenCut
· 17h ago
Great technology but the ecosystem is empty—that's the real problem... Institutions won't spend real money on the testnet.
View OriginalReply0
POAPlectionist
· 01-10 12:59
Technology can be judged at a glance, but when it comes to the ecosystem... Testnets are like ghost towns. No matter how advanced the privacy solutions are, someone has to use them. That's just the harsh reality.
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiNotNakamoto
· 01-10 12:59
The testnet experience is indeed smooth, but the ecosystem is so cold... Can it really attract institutions?
View OriginalReply0
DecentralizedElder
· 01-10 12:57
The technology is indeed solid, but the ecosystem is really cold... Without regulatory approval or backing from institutions, who would dare to invest money?
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHunterWang
· 01-10 12:55
The ecosystem is so cold, why talk about RWA? You need real business.
View OriginalReply0
NFTArchaeologis
· 01-10 12:51
In plain terms, Dusk's narrative of "privacy + compliance" is very compelling, but right now it's like a rare, exquisite ancient manuscript—meticulously crafted paper and binding—yet still lying in the storage room. The lack of activity on the testnet is no small matter, as it means no one is really using it to build things. Institutional trust doesn't appear out of thin air just because ZK proofs look impressive; there must be real business scenarios with tangible value.
Recently spent quite some time tinkering on the DuskEVM testnet, purely out of curiosity about the "compliance + privacy" route. I wanted to see what kind of balance a public chain can find between privacy protection and regulatory friendliness.
First, let's talk about the real experience. Connecting to the testnet is not difficult—just add an RPC configuration in MetaMask (Chain ID 745), and it’s ready to use immediately. Deploying smart contracts, transferring funds, and other basic operations run smoothly, with block confirmation delays basically at the second level, and gas costs are nearly negligible. The technical foundation here is indeed solid.
What’s more interesting is the dual-mode design. In Phoenix mode, transaction information is encrypted—you can’t see the amount or the counterparty, only the transaction hash and ZK zero-knowledge proof—this layer of privacy protection is truly effective. Moonlight maintains an open ledger logic, with both modes running in parallel, allowing users to choose based on their needs. This design approach is quite rare in the industry and also very considerate.
But real-world problems are also evident. The testnet ecosystem is somewhat cold—active applications are few, and most addresses found in the explorer are traces of internal testing. This stands in stark contrast to Dusk’s grand goal of serving RWA assets worth hundreds of millions of euros. To put it plainly, institutions simply wouldn’t participate with real funds in an environment without genuine licensing backing or risk isolation—there’s a huge gap between testing enthusiasm and institutional trust.
This is also why DuskTrade paired with projects like NPEX, which are actually on-chain, is so important for Dusk. Good technical indicators alone are not enough; real business scenarios are needed to validate. Dusk’s accumulation of compliance licenses and its choice of EVM compatibility theoretically lay the foundation for these applications. But from the current state of the testnet, there’s still a lot of work to do from concept to large-scale real-world application.