Author Topic: Introduction of new BTC units to reflect present day prices to increase adoption  (Read 14 times)

Offline administrator

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 40076
    • View Profile
What makes adoption easier? Making something relatable. In this case, I'm talking about labelling two new, much needed Bitcoin units to accommodate present and future prices of goods and services relative to the US dollar and other fiat currencies. When the price of one BTC hovers near $10,000 USD, we have no unit worth 0.0001 (1e-4) BTC for an optimal conversion for the general public. If the price of Bitcoin gets to $100,000 USD one day, we also have no unit worth 0.00001 (1e-5), which is optimal for that price level. I understand that it's because the metric system simply does not have units for those values. I think these are the two most important units in driving adoption worldwide, because if people can more easily understand and convert prices from their native currency into a unit of Bitcoin, they may be more likely to actually use bitcoin. People have spent their entire lifetime learning how much stuff costs in their native currency, and so the closer the unit, the better.

I made a couple excel spreadsheets of the current units alongside common purchases in USD and how much that would be in each BTC denomination, and I realized it's quite unfriendly for the general public right now. For 1e-4 and 1e-5 units, I think it makes the most sense to use what's used in foreign exchange markets. A 'pip' is used for the fourth decimal when trading fiat currencies, which is 0.0001. Furthermore, a fractional pip is known as a 'pipette' and is used for the fifth decimal, 0.00001. See my excel charts for a better picture.

When I searched for discussions about either of these units/denominations after I had my thoughts and ideas, I only found this old thread from 2011 which got absolutely nowhere: It is good news that I'm not the first person to spontaneously think about this, because if multiple people are having the same thoughts and ideas, it may be a sound course of action.

Lastly, I saw here: that someone suggested we call 1e-7 a Finney, but it's not established, so I didn't include it in my charts.

Thanks for reading, would love some feedback on this idea.