Honestly, from the perspective of pure crypto enthusiasts, EVM is nothing new. Not cool, not avant-garde, and some even see it as an "outdated technology." So when I first saw Dusk propose DuskEVM, I was a bit confused—why would a Layer1 focused on compliance and privacy embrace such a "common" choice?

But looking at it from a different angle changes the picture. When you shift from a "crypto native" perspective to that of "traditional financial participants," the answer becomes much clearer. For institutions, development teams, and those involved in financial IT, relearning a completely unfamiliar execution environment is a huge hurdle. It’s not that they reject innovation; they prioritize stability, controllability, and migration costs.

Dusk choosing EVM isn’t about riding the ecosystem wave. The real goal is to lower the barrier to entry. This is especially important in compliant financial scenarios. Traditional financial systems are already complex enough; stacking an entirely unfamiliar development logic on top could cause many potential participants to turn away. DuskEVM essentially says: you don’t have to give up a decade of technical experience just to get on-chain.

Another detail worth noting is that Dusk doesn’t treat EVM as a replacement for the underlying consensus but rather as an interface at the application layer. This design approach is quite interesting in itself. The goal isn’t to run everything on EVM but to enable the parts that truly need it to run on EVM.

This "subtractive" approach is actually more pragmatic than those that pursue flashy, innovative technologies when it comes to attracting financial institutions.