I wanted to know if $ACU has real demand behind it, so I went digging. Not the price chart. I wanted to see what people are actually doing on @Acurast . Found some interesting num 34,064 processors online and 16,783 deployed. That's where the dashboard's 49.3% utilization comes from: 16,783 deployed ÷ 34,064 online × 100. Basically, about half of the online processors are deployed. But being deployed doesn't automatically mean they're busy doing paid work. The workload dashboard shows 16.9K deployments over 30 days from 52 deployers. That's a start. But I'd love to know how many are paid workloads and how many customers come back. Deployment counts alone don't tell us that. Then I checked staking. 165.03M ACU staked, with a reported gross network APR of 21.21%. Sounds good on paper, right? But that APR comes from token emissions, not necessarily money customers are paying to use Acurast. Those are two very different things. And here's another detail I found interesting: you can pay for compute in other tokens. You don't necessarily need to buy $ACU just to use the network. Honestly, I like that for users. Less friction. But if I'm looking at $ACU as a token, it raises a fair question: if people can use Acurast without buying ACU first, what drives demand for the token? These are the things I'd keep watching: - Are more processors actually being used? - Is utilization improving? - Are deployers paying and coming back? - Is staking growing alongside real usage? - Can demand keep up with new token supply? I'm not against the idea. Using smartphones for decentralized compute, especially for workloads where privacy matters, is genuinely interesting. I just don't think more phones and a juicy APR are enough to prove the token thesis. I wanna see people using Acurast because they need the service, not just because they're earning rewards. That's the difference I'm looking for. What's the first metric you'd check before deciding if $ACU has real demand?