A technical approach to answering two simple questions: Is it good? Do people use it? A technical approach to answering two simple questions: Is it good? Do people use it? Bitcoin miners compete to compute the most hashes per second. Burn more electricity, earn more block rewards. The elegance is real. So is the waste. What if that same spirit of rigorous, verifiable proof were applied to a question that actually matters? Not "did you burn enough electricity?" but "does your project solve real problems for real people?" The foundational shift Bitcoin's consensus mechanism asks: Did you demonstrate sufficient computational commitment to deserve validating this block? Did you demonstrate sufficient computational commitment to deserve validating this block? Proof of Usefulness asks: Does this project create demonstrable value in the world? Does this project create demonstrable value in the world? The architectural goal is the same in both cases — produce a score that cannot be easily faked and that correlates with something real. The difference is what "something real" means. In Bitcoin, it means electricity burned. In Proof of Usefulness, it means people helped. The formula PoU_score = Σ(w_i × C_i × Q_i) + R_factor PoU_score = Σ(w_i × C_i × Q_i) + R_factor w_i (weight factors): Statistical weights reflecting the patterns startup failure research consistently identifies as predictors of lasting value creation. w_i (weight factors): C_i (criterion scores): Normalized 0–100 scores per criterion, generated from response analysis and independent evidence validation. C_i (criterion scores): Q_i (quality multipliers): Response quality modifier based on specificity, depth, and the availability of supporting evidence. Vague claims score lower. Quantified claims with verifiable links score higher. Q_i (quality multipliers): R_factor (randomization component): A ±20% market uncertainty variance that prevents threshold-gaming. Projects cannot strategically position just above a scoring boundary — genuine utility accumulates advantages across multiple evaluations, while marginal projects fluctuate. R_factor (randomization component): The seven scoring tiers Score RangeTierMeaning751–1000Unicorn UtilityUndeniable utility with massive, documented adoption601–750Category StandardDefault choice; trusted across the category451–600Industry MainstayDefinitive solution to a recognized market problem301–450Certified Problem SolverSelf-sustaining, with demonstrated long-term stability101–300Gaining MomentumTransitioning from interesting idea to serious contender0–100You're In BusinessDeployed and functional; the world did not crash−100 to 0Lab ModeAlmost ready for the world to see Score RangeTierMeaning751–1000Unicorn UtilityUndeniable utility with massive, documented adoption601–750Category StandardDefault choice; trusted across the category451–600Industry MainstayDefinitive solution to a recognized market problem301–450Certified Problem SolverSelf-sustaining, with demonstrated long-term stability101–300Gaining MomentumTransitioning from interesting idea to serious contender0–100You're In BusinessDeployed and functional; the world did not crash−100 to 0Lab ModeAlmost ready for the world to see Score RangeTierMeaning Score RangeTierMeaning Score Range Tier Meaning 751–1000Unicorn UtilityUndeniable utility with massive, documented adoption601–750Category StandardDefault choice; trusted across the category451–600Industry MainstayDefinitive solution to a recognized market problem301–450Certified Problem SolverSelf-sustaining, with demonstrated long-term stability101–300Gaining MomentumTransitioning from interesting idea to serious contender0–100You're In BusinessDeployed and functional; the world did not crash−100 to 0Lab ModeAlmost ready for the world to see 751–1000Unicorn UtilityUndeniable utility with massive, documented adoption 751–1000 Unicorn Utility Undeniable utility with massive, documented adoption 601–750Category StandardDefault choice; trusted across the category 601–750 Category Standard Default choice; trusted across the category 451–600Industry MainstayDefinitive solution to a recognized market problem 451–600 Industry Mainstay Definitive solution to a recognized market problem 301–450Certified Problem SolverSelf-sustaining, with demonstrated long-term stability 301–450 Certified Problem Solver Self-sustaining, with demonstrated long-term stability 101–300Gaining MomentumTransitioning from interesting idea to serious contender 101–300 Gaining Momentum Transitioning from interesting idea to serious contender 0–100You're In BusinessDeployed and functional; the world did not crash 0–100 You're In Business Deployed and functional; the world did not crash −100 to 0Lab ModeAlmost ready for the world to see −100 to 0 Lab Mode Almost ready for the world to see The six evaluation criteria Real-World Utility (25%): Does this solve a genuine problem? Is the solution practical and immediately usable? Scored 0–100 on problem-solution fit quality. Real-World Utility (25%): Evidence of Traction (25%): Can claims be independently verified? Web presence validation, user adoption signals (GitHub activity, download counts, community engagement), media coverage, testimonials, financial disclosures. Scored 0–100 based on the strength and diversity of verifiable signals. Evidence of Traction (25%): Audience Reach & Impact (20%): Verified reach against claimed reach. Growth trajectory. Retention cohorts. Scored 0–100 based on genuine scale and momentum. Audience Reach & Impact (20%): Technical Innovation and Stability (15%): Novel application of technology combined with implementation reliability. Scored 0–100 on the dual axis of competitive differentiation and operational dependability. Technical Innovation and Stability (15%): Market Timing & Relevance (10%): Is this addressing a current need? Is the competitive landscape navigable? Scored 0–100 based on timing fit and positioning. Market Timing & Relevance (10%): Functional Completeness (5%): Does it actually work, right now, for real users? Scored 0–100 based on implementation quality and submission polish. Functional Completeness (5%): Cross-validation: the anti-bullshit layer Projects self-report metrics. We then verify against independent sources: Web traffic data and behavioral signals (time-on-site, bounce rate, return visits)API usage patterns and rate dataGitHub repository activity (stars, forks, open issues, contributor diversity, dependent repositories)Social media engagement quality (not follower counts — conversation depth)Financial disclosures and revenue indicatorsNews coverage and on-chain data where applicable Web traffic data and behavioral signals (time-on-site, bounce rate, return visits) API usage patterns and rate data GitHub repository activity (stars, forks, open issues, contributor diversity, dependent repositories) Social media engagement quality (not follower counts — conversation depth) Financial disclosures and revenue indicators News coverage and on-chain data where applicable Claimed user counts without verifiable evidence are discounted 80–90%. Revenue claims without supporting signals score accordingly. Technical descriptions that contradict publicly accessible code are penalized directly. The system is designed around a single premise: if your utility claims are true, evidence of that utility should exist somewhere in the public record. Useful tools leave traces. Usage is the new valuation. Usage is the new valuation. Sources Sources https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/startup-failure-reasons-top/https://www.bls.gov/bdm/bdmage.htm https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/startup-failure-reasons-top/ https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/startup-failure-reasons-top/ https://www.bls.gov/bdm/bdmage.htm https://www.bls.gov/bdm/bdmage.htm This post was AI assisted based on exclusive content from internal HackerNoon meetings, documents, code, discussions, and product development workflows for Proof of Usefulness. It was edited by HackerNoon staff. If you are interested in trying out HackerNoon's beta tool to turn your existing Slack, GitHub, Zooms, and more into quality public posts, book a business blogging meeting. This post was AI assisted based on exclusive content from internal HackerNoon meetings, documents, code, discussions, and product development workflows for Proof of Usefulness. It was edited by HackerNoon staff. If you are interested in trying out HackerNoon's beta tool to turn your existing Slack, GitHub, Zooms, and more into quality public posts, book a business blogging meeting. This post was AI assisted based on exclusive content from internal HackerNoon meetings, documents, code, discussions, and product development workflows for Proof of Usefulness. Proof of Usefulness. It was edited by HackerNoon staff edited by HackerNoon staff . If you are interested in trying out HackerNoon's beta tool to turn your existing Slack, GitHub, Zooms, and more into quality public posts, book a business blogging meeting book a business blogging meeting .

This story contains AI-generated text. The author has used AI either for research, to generate outlines, or write the text itself. 

This post provides insights into new product. 

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

The Proof of Usefulness Algorithm: Is It Good? Do People Use It?

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Audience Reach & Impact: How Utility Scales

Designing for People Who Didn’t Choose Your Product

Three Numbers. That’s All Your AI Needs to Work

Going Beyond Spring: Exploring Vert.x for Reactive Java Development

Why Being Likable At Work Matters

Windows Sticky Keys Exploit: The War Veteran That Never Dies

Audience Reach & Impact: How Utility Scales

Designing for People Who Didn’t Choose Your Product

Three Numbers. That’s All Your AI Needs to Work

Going Beyond Spring: Exploring Vert.x for Reactive Java Development

Why Being Likable At Work Matters

Windows Sticky Keys Exploit: The War Veteran That Never Dies

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps