Yea thats kinda along the lines I was thinking! I like the “2-3-3” they have it pictured. That helps to get at least two of the zeros quickly and easily out of the way mentally, and makes it easier to read thousands and hundreds of thousands that way.

So if i’m glancing at it and it seems like a larger sats number based on which decimal places have zeros, i’ll go with the “2-3-3”. And if it looks like a smaller sats number, i’ll go with either the “3-3-2” method to get through the zeros faster and see what the final one or two sats digits are. Might see if my brains likes this or the “2-2-2-2”counting better for the smaller amounts. But yea, either way, so far i like the “2-3-3” reading for regular or larger sats amounts.

Thanks for the link! ⚡️ 🤙

This seems like it would be a really helpful and reasonable standard, but i just haven’t seen it used anywhere, or haven’t noticed since my brain has been doing its own “flippening” 😂

nostr:npub13yrcjh6v8efapytwfssvz5awxh23vry9uu2e3hu72xzm03e0fges47epkg

….sorry, not sure which Mark, if they are on here haha