I've never really considered myself a developer—more like someone who's willing to get their hands dirty and try things out. Usually, when I see project updates, I'll click through to take a look, but often that's as far as it goes. Because if you don't actually do anything, you can always imagine everything going smoothly. No matter how beautifully the documentation is written or how clearly the roadmap is laid out, you won't truly know whether it actually works in real-world use. Then when the Dusk Foundation launched the DuskEVM public testnet, I thought, 'Why just watch from the sidelines? Let me go through the process myself—even if I only make it halfway, at least I'll know exactly where I get stuck.'
I will first share a very direct feeling. The matter of EVM compatibility is really not just about announcing it. Many chains claim compatibility, but when you actually try it, you find that the wallet can't connect, RPC is unstable, the transaction browser either has no data or is very slow, and there are various strange errors during contract deployment. You haven't even written business logic, and already much of your patience is consumed on environmental issues. Then, you start to doubt whether you made the wrong choice. You may also question whether the project has only scratched the surface.
When I entered the DuskEVM testnet, the first things I wanted to do were actually very simple. First, get my hands on test assets. Second, bridge the assets from DuskDS to DuskEVM. Third, use these assets as gas to initiate the simplest contract deployment and then call the contract to see if the transaction can be confirmed and if the status can be checked in the browser. It sounds simple, but this is a minimal closed loop. If the closed loop doesn't work, then any further discussions about compliance, privacy, and institutional adoption will be empty.
The bridging step feels both familiar and unfamiliar to me. It is familiar because I have bridged other chains before and know the general process. It is unfamiliar because the Dusk Foundation has broken the structure into different layers: DuskDS is the underlying settlement and consensus layer, while DuskEVM is the execution layer. You are not jumping between two completely independent chains, but walking from one layer to another within the same system. It gives me a sense of moving from a more foundational environment to a more application-oriented environment. This description may not be precise, but that was my understanding at the time.
I followed the steps to bridge in the Web Wallet. During the bridging process, I am particularly concerned about two things: whether the waiting time is acceptable, and whether I can clearly know the status. Because what is most feared in cross-chain or cross-layer is that you wait and wait, feeling uncertain, not knowing if you made a mistake in your operation, if the network is congested, or if there is an issue with the bridge contract. Many projects will let users ask in groups at this step, but often no one in the group can give you a definitive answer. That kind of experience is very poor.
One clear point Dusk has made is that it has explained that the assets bridged over will be used as gas on the DuskEVM side. For someone like me who doesn't want to delve too deeply into the underlying details, as long as you clearly state the key rules, I can make fewer mistakes. When the rules are unclear, I tend to make some very foolish decisions, like transferring amounts that shouldn't be transferred or clicking repeatedly at inappropriate times, ultimately confusing myself.
After bridging, I started trying to connect RPC using common EVM tools. I don't want to make the process too technical because once I start, it turns into a tutorial-style piece, and you won't let me use that very tidy expression. I'll just state the result. Being able to connect is one thing; whether the connection is stable afterward is another. I have encountered small fluctuations several times; sometimes requests are slow, and other times retries are needed. This situation is considered normal in the testnet, but it directly affects a person's judgment. When deploying a contract, you are already nervous; if you get anxious, you will click repeatedly, and repeating clicks increases the chances of making mistakes.
I later learned my lesson. As long as the transaction has been sent, I no longer refresh crazily. I give it some time. I find that many times it is not that the chain is failing, but that I am too impatient. However, I must say, it is normal for users to be anxious. You cannot expect everyone to be patient. For a network to reach a broader audience, it ultimately needs to treat this impatience as design input, rather than viewing it as a flaw in users. If you require users to maintain saint-like patience at every step, it indicates that your process is not smooth enough.
For the contract deployment step, I chose the simplest type of contract, almost without logic, just to see if deployment and invocation could succeed. When the deployment succeeded, I indeed breathed a sigh of relief. This indicates that the most basic EVM execution process is functional. If you can deploy, you can iterate. If you can iterate, more people will be willing to try. If you can't even maintain stability in deployment, it will be very difficult for the ecosystem to take the next step.
However, a successful deployment does not mean everything is fine. Later, I encountered some fragmented experience issues. For example, sometimes the transaction hash appears, but the browser shows it slowly. You might wonder if your deployment failed. You check the wallet, and it shows something different. Then you start switching back and forth between multiple pages. This process can easily become frustrating. When frustrated, you may attribute your irritation to the project's immaturity. Whether the project is mature may need more evidence, but user emotions are generated this way; they are unreasonable and do not wait for your explanations.
Throughout this process, I kept thinking about the path of the Dusk Foundation. It claims to be building a privacy chain aimed at compliant financial applications. To be honest, this path naturally leads to expectations that it should be more stable than ordinary chains. Because compliant finance cannot tolerate frequent minor issues. If retail applications encounter problems, people will only complain a little. If financial services have issues, it will lead to reconciliation, settlement, and responsibility, with entirely different consequences. Therefore, when I see these fragmented stalls and delays in the testnet, I think that if these issues are not significantly improved in the future, it will be very difficult for it to enter serious scenarios.
However, I will not use the testnet experience to directly render a death sentence. The testnet is meant to expose issues. What truly concerns me is another point: does the project team recognize that these issues belong to the core experience and not the marginal experience? Many teams treat performance issues as something to optimize later, browser display issues as minor matters, and wallet interaction issues as community self-service. But in a network aiming to reach a broader audience, these are not trivial matters. They are the entry points. If the entry is narrow, even with more capabilities later, it will still be blocked.
I also noticed a very real phenomenon. Many people talk about DuskEVM and only discuss the ecological possibilities brought by EVM. They say developers will come, applications will explode, and DeFi can migrate. I do not completely deny these possibilities, but I am more cautious. Because the EVM world is already very crowded. Just moving the same contract over does not automatically bring users. You may even face fiercer competition. Why would users choose your chain over other EVM chains? If your only answer is because we are also compatible, that is essentially no answer.
Therefore, I will shift my focus back to the Dusk Foundation's core differentiating point, which is its consistent emphasis on compliant privacy. I do not want to make it sound too esoteric; I will put it in the simplest terms. Many financial actions require confidentiality but cannot be non-explainable. You need to keep details confidential, such as transaction amounts, holding structures, and order strategies. You need to be explainable in that you have not violated rules, you meet entry criteria, you comply with restrictions, and your asset transfers follow the rules. These two needs exist simultaneously. Traditional finance achieves this balance through systems and permission structures, but if on-chain systems want to meet these needs, they must write the balance into agreements, proofs, and processes.
Of course, I haven't experienced these advanced features in the testnet yet. Because they often won't be easily available to everyone on the first day. But I think about how, if privacy engines like Hedger are to enter the EVM execution environment in the future, how will they ultimately affect ordinary developers? Will it require those writing contracts to understand more cryptography? Will it push up transaction costs? Will it make users wait longer? Will it complicate wallet interactions? Will it make auditing and regulatory interfaces harder to manage? Each question is not romantic, but each question will determine whether it can be adopted in serious scenarios.
I have a more trivial, yet necessary thought that someone needs to raise. In the community narrative of the Dusk Foundation, the goals are often set very high. For instance, regulated securities on-chain, institutional adoption, and cross-chain settlement and data standards. These goals are all valid, but setting them too high may lead people to overlook a fact: it is a series of small links that truly push the goals forward. For example, whether the faucet in the testnet is stable. Whether there are enough public nodes for RPC services. Whether the browser can synchronize quickly. Whether developers have a clear path for troubleshooting when encountering errors. Whether documentation is updated in a timely manner. Whether version upgrades have clear compatibility statements. If you do these links well, the goals will naturally move forward. If you only talk about goals without fixing the links, the goals will remain just slogans.
During the few days I was tinkering, I occasionally thought about what role the DUSK token really plays here. In the past, when people talked about tokens, they often only discussed prices. I now prefer to think of it as a tool within the system. It has to bear staking and security incentives in the underlying consensus, bear gas and transaction fees in the execution layer, and serve as a medium of circulation in cross-layer bridging. If a token is assigned so many roles, then the system must clearly explain its fee model, incentive model, and bridging model. Otherwise, users will only feel confused. Once confusion arises, trust will decline. Financial scenarios are particularly sensitive to confusion.
I also want to discuss the issue of nodes and infrastructure service providers. Many people only view the EVM testnet from a developer's perspective, thinking that as long as contracts can be deployed, it is sufficient. However, I believe that the actual experience is determined by the infrastructure. You rely on RPC to deploy contracts, you rely on indexing to check data, you rely on the browser to view transactions, and you rely on front-end and back-end services to bridge assets. If any one link is unstable, users will perceive the chain as unstable. The chain itself might be fine, but users won't differentiate. For them, whether it can be used is the only thing that matters.
So sometimes I feel that what the Dusk Foundation should focus on at this stage is not to rush to showcase more complex application cases, but to refine these basic experiences to be more reliable. You can make the process seem a little clumsy, but ensure it makes as few errors as possible. You can keep the pages simple, but make the prompts clear enough. You can initially have fewer functions, but ensure the launched functions are stable enough. This approach may sound conservative, but for a network aiming for compliant financial routes, conservatism can sometimes be an advantage.
As I write this, some may say that what you mentioned can also be done by other chains, and there is nothing special about it. Yes, other chains can do it. But I would counter with a question: since everyone is doing these things, why are there still so many chains that do not perform well? The reason is simple: these things are not easy to market as highlights. If you release a version that fixes ten small bugs, people outside won't share it. If you optimize RPC stability, people outside won't applaud. If you make the documentation clearer, people outside won't consider it newsworthy. But if you don't do it, developers and users will vote with their feet. The project will gradually lose momentum. Without momentum, even the grandest goals are useless.
I do not wish for my writing to come off as nitpicking. I also want to say something positive. At least for me, this phase of the DuskEVM testnet has made the Dusk Foundation's path more concrete. It has given an observer the opportunity to become a participant. You can really deploy a contract once, really go through a cross-layer bridge, and truly feel the rhythm of transaction confirmation. You will shift from the abstract "it says it has EVM" to the concrete "I have transacted on it." This sense of concreteness is important; it makes discussions more grounded and feedback more effective.
I hope more people participate in a more ordinary way, rather than just shouting slogans on social media. You don't need to write very complex applications; you can create the simplest contract or make a very simple front-end interaction. You can even just compile the error messages and reproduction steps you encounter. For engineering teams, reproduction steps are more valuable than emotions. For the community, reproduction steps can also help newcomers avoid detours.
Of course, engineering teams also need to be more transparent. Transparency does not mean self-denial every day, but rather clearly stating which features are in the testing phase, which are still in progress, which risks users need to bear, and which issues are being fixed. The crypto industry sometimes wraps everything in success, which results in users becoming more frustrated after encountering pitfalls. Once anger accumulates, it turns into distrust. Distrust is very hard to repair. Especially when you want to build financial infrastructure, distrust will directly block you from entering the door.
I have a more personal thought. If the Dusk Foundation really wants to make compliant privacy its core capability, it may always be at a disadvantage in its narrative. Because the market prefers simple stories. Simple stories spread quickly. Compliant privacy is not a simple story; it is inherently complex. It involves regulation, systems, audits, permission boundaries, and cryptographic proofs. If you cannot explain clearly, others will misunderstand. If you are too detailed, others will find you verbose. But if you don't explain, partners will be hesitant to use it. It is this kind of awkwardness.
But precisely because of this awkwardness, I feel that this route is more like a hard struggle against reality. The process of hard struggling against reality can appear clumsy and slow. Some stalls, delays, and incomplete documentation appearing in the testnet can actually be understood. The key is whether these issues can be progressively resolved. If they can be resolved, the road will become a bit wider. If they cannot be resolved, the road will become narrower and narrower.
Writing this piece serves as a record for myself. In the future, if DuskEVM enters a more mature stage, I might look back at this experience to see which issues have been resolved and which are still present. For a network, growth is not measured by how lively you once were, but by whether you can consistently address those less lively areas over time. The longer you address them, the more others will naturally notice. Once they notice, only then can you talk about bigger matters.
The testnet has shown me a direction, and it has also shown me the distance. The direction is the combination of compliant finance and privacy capabilities, while the distance is the maturity of basic experience and toolchain. Both direction and distance are real. Reality means there is still much to be done. It also means it is worth continuing to observe.
