Project Euler used to say something along the lines of "not everyone can solve every problem, and that's OK". Looks like they've removed that statement though. I remember encountering it early in my career and realizing some problems I cannot solve, even though others can.
For my personal goals, I want to get better at programming and not at math. When I find myself spending more time on the math rather than programming, I just skip the problem. I suspect many people abandon Project Euler for the same reasons I encountered.
With all that said, I agree that not everyone can solve every problem and that is ok.
When I was in college we used this (or an earlier version, that's a different URL than what I recall) in preparation for ACM programming competitions.
IMO AoC should strife to be completable by 80% of programmers (number is out of thin air, but you got the idea).
Project Euler is a different beast.
Of course that's just my opinion.
For the other 20% where I don't even know where to start, I look up a solution on reddit, try to understand it and re-implement it myself, and learn something new. The 2020 day 13 problem mentioned by GP was indeed one of those for me last year.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/adventofcode/comments/kcl7d2/2020_d...
I think AoC goes for slowly growing difficulty which helps keep more skilled people engaged.
What would be the point then, it will be just another leetcode
Its meant to be hard and meant to force you to learn.
See 2019's IntCode puzzles for instance for something very far from Project Euler. They also had the side-effect of benefiting anyone who spent time refactoring their initial versions to create a better interface, a later day (23?) has you run 50 IntCode computers concurrently and communicating with each other. This became very hard to actually implement for many people because of the structure of their simulator and how they'd handled concurrent simulations earlier.