Dusk first stood out to me for a reason most people do not track on dashboards. It limits how much power execution gets by default.
One detail many people miss is that Dusk runs an EVM compatible execution layer, DuskEVM, but does not let execution there automatically become ledger truth. Contracts can run with familiar tooling, but outcomes are still filtered at the DuskDS settlement boundary before they become state.
In my experience, when a chain adds EVM compatibility, it usually inherits execution risk together with developer convenience. More contracts, more composability, more edge behavior that only shows up under stress. Dusk does not accept that trade blindly.
Execution on Dusk produces candidate results. Only results that pass protocol rule checks and eligibility constraints are allowed to settle. That removes a class of downstream cleanup, audits, and exception handling before it exists.
There is also real product alignment behind this. The Dusk stack is being used for regulated asset flows such as DuskTrade, targeting hundreds of millions in tokenized securities volume. That only works if settlement acceptance is structural, not interpretive.
This is why I see DUSK less as a usage token and more as an operating token for filtered settlement infrastructure.
Expressive execution is easy to add. Refusing unsafe outcomes is harder. That is where the design choice really sits.
