Most chains try to stay flexible when pressure hits. More adaptive fees. More dynamic rules. More room to say we will fix it later. On paper, that looks resilient. In real systems, it often becomes interpretive debt.
One reason I keep coming back to Dusk is its lack of tolerance for unclear outcomes. Execution can be expressive, but settlement is strict about what is allowed to exist as state. If the constraints fail at the boundary, the result simply does not move forward.
From the outside, this design feels quiet. Fewer visible fixes. Fewer dramatic reversals. Fewer social level patches. But over enough cycles, I trust quiet constraint more than loud adaptability.
Infrastructure that rejects questionable states early usually ages better than infrastructure that spends years explaining them later.
