Hi, I think this is a good idea but it should be implemented in a less radical way...
For example in my transaction I see:
1.000 UD and 9.091 dUD
I would prefer to see 1.000 UD and 0.909 UD which I find less complex.
I think there needs to be a balance between the scientific notation and the international one.
If I display in international, I cannot use any scientific notation at all (which makes it hard for MB)
For example for Litres we often use hL, L, cL and mL but very rarely use daL and dL ... There is no need to use all notations thanks to digit rounding.
the switch to dUDs is very confusing.
even better would be to display UD in UD per day (%) for example 100 UDD (UD per day).
in this case we would not need much units below 0.
dUD, cUD, mUD are not standard ways to scale numbers. A correct scale number (international normalisation) is 10⁻¹,10-²,10⁻³ etc.
So a correct way to propose a scale should be to put the power number in preferences and to put informations at the top of transactions, in the same line than the dates, and avoid to put "UD" unit in the tabs (as it will be noted on that top line).
Line : Date begin, Date end, Money Name, Referential (Q,UD,QZ,RZ...), Unit Power (10⁻¹,10-²,10⁻³...)
I'm not sure that 10⁻¹,10-²,10⁻³ would be really user friendly. I never see this in front of money units. It's probably standard, but not common in daily life. I'd prefer to go for the proposal to remove centi and deci units.
In the current use of money only ¨cents¨ are common. Scientific notation is more for scientific use not for people who use money.
Therefore I change my suggestions to use:
0,01 UD => 1 cUD
If by default we display the UD in 100 UDD (UD per day)., then we would not have to use much numbers below 0.
I agree that we should stick to the language people already use for currency.
1 cUD might be relevant but then 0,01 UD is not hard to read/understand and people are used to 10^-2 because of price tags. The problem is that currency language is mixing scientific and non-scientific notation... (eg we say k€ for thousands but not for kilo, and million instead of mega for millions...): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix#List_of_SI_prefixes
I prefer your suggestion of UD, mUD. Perhaps we could have:
kUD => 1,000
UD
mUD => 0,001
But then what if we need to go higher or lower? Higher we could have million (MUD), billion (BnUD) which are understandable in terms of currency language. But what about lower?
maybe we dont need at all kUDs mUD and so on if the default unit is one Unit = 1% of UD per day.
in this case for normal use we will not get much below 0 (we dont have the bitcoin problem :))
above 0 is easy to read for humans: 1.000 or even 1.000.000 is still ok to display, humans love big numbers :) in average one participant will have 100 * 30 * 12 * 10 cUDD* = 360.000 cUDD thats still ok to display :)
Don't mix display form and units. With mUD, cUD the display change, not the unit/referential.
If your display needs a transform formula on the value before display, it is a new unit, so a new referential.
@Arcurus : I suggest you to create a new referential for UDD.
Please give us the following informations :
Name: Name of the referential in the selector.
Units: text displayed after values.
Formula: Formula to transform the internal value in the new referential.
Description: An explanation of what is this referential and his purpose.
With enough informations, a new referential can be created and explain to users.
So I can select the UD referential (which I prefer), or select UDD when I please.
Name: Mango (Universal dividend per day in percent / Mango is just a replacement until we have a nice name :) )
Units: Mango
Formula: 1 Mango = Units * 100 / (UD of one day ) )
Description: Universal Dividend per Day displayed in percent. The purpose is to have a default unit that is easy to use and understand. 100 Mangos equal the universal dividend received per member per day.
lol yea for meta_bounzouf it would be nearly the same, just multiplied 100 :)
but for the beta currency it would be different :)
also because it is multiplied by 100 we wont need much thinking about how to display small units properly ;)
in true with meta_bounzouf with simulation one day one year we would have to multiply it with 36500 :)
Sorry for the name Mango, but you mentioned "UDD" and "Dividend per day", which I found more explicit, so I used it.
I have received 461,17 mUD from a member in UD Referential today.
It appears as 46,12 UDD in Dividend per day Referential.
Monetary mass and average per member are as Relative Referential but multiplied by 100.
yea UDD is fine :)
if its correct i dont know, i must see the formula:
Formula: 1 UDD = Units * 100 / (UD of one day ) )
really correct it would be if the UDD amount of the transactions is counted in the UD per Day of the time of the transaction. the account balance on the other hand is always counted with the current UD per day.