You're right that sats are to Bitcoin what pennies are to the dollar — it's a clear and intuitive analogy. The confusing part in the "bits vs sats" debate comes from trying to rebrand or standardize sub-units in a way that newcomers can easily grasp. Here's where it gets complicated:

Unit bias & perception: New users might feel Bitcoin is “too expensive,” so seeing 100,000 sats feels more approachable than 0.001 BTC. But then, introducing bits (where 1 bit = 100 sats) just adds another layer that isn't universally adopted.Too many units: BTC, mBTC, bits, sats — multiple unit names for the same asset can cause cognitive overload, especially for people just trying to understand how much something costs.

Lack of standardization: Wallets and exchanges aren’t consistent. Some show BTC, others show sats. Throw bits into the mix and it gets even messier.

Ultimately, sats make the most sense: they’re the smallest unit, already widely used in Lightning and Nostr, and they feel tangible — like pennies. The real challenge is in education and UX, not renaming things.