Or Syncro or Synchro

Syncyo is defensible because can't be placed into a similar portmanteau without violating the community's property (thus likely being ignored). But OTOH, if we don't use BitSync/Sync, then some other project is likely to use it.

I am not too much concerned about others copying our project name with variants. If Sync/BitSync has larger market adoption, it won't really matter what the other copycoins do.

Yoobits may or may not be worrisome. I'd prefer to have currency names which have no similar portmanteaus.

I had also presented the ideas iown (from ion and i-on) and mebit long ago.

Let's not forget ibits, which is also available.

nit is short for grump or nitpicker.

So now you can see why I was proposing to use for currency names Bits, Cool, and maybe Ching or Chan.

Once again I return my original instincts which is:

Network	Sync
Main currency	Bits
Social currency	Cool
Micro-tx currency	Ching or Chan

If anyone creates a portmanteau from those, then they are really just contributing to our brand.

The micro-tx currency is optional. We could go with just Bits and Cool to simplify.

If everyone prefers Chan over Cool then we could.

If there is another name we prefer for the social/micro-tx currency, such as Vibes then we could.

K.I.S.S.

An advantage of Yoonits is then won't have dozens of copycoins, selfbits, mebits (which was one of my early naming suggestions), mybits, ourbits, bitsme, bitsyou, imeminebits, mymyselfbits, facebits, yobits, ubits, uberbits, someofabitches, lol.

Disadvantages are lose the connection to Bitcoin, Younits can be pronounced "Yo", units and nits are less meaningful to normal people than bits.

I suppose this was the reason I preferred Bits so we could capture all the copy coins with the general concept of Bits. Bits is less descriptive and this is a plus and a minus.

Same criticism can be leveled against any portmanteau such as BitSync, so the copies can be DocuSync, ChainSync, Synchain, etc.. That is why I say Syncyo is more brandable (defensible in the market).

Maybe we should entirely get away from the concept of bits? Yoonits is more brandable (defensible) than yoobits.

Bits is non descriptive. It could be bits of anything. We would be forcing people to use a term which is not natural because it doesn't identify what it is.

Yoobits are bits you control. It doesn't say what these bits are that you control, but only that you control them. That is more descriptive than bits but still abstract enough to become money. Money is something we in theory (or desire to) personally control. So Yoobits are a private property. But abstract private property is precisely what money is. Private property that is not abstract, is thus not fungible and can only be traded efficiently using the medium of abstract private property known as money.

So Yoobits captures the essence of what money is which is abstract private property. As Andreas Antonopoulos recently explained, money is a medium of communication.

I don't like YooSync, because the block chain synchronization is not autonomous.

I think I prefer Sync or BitSync, but one other idea is Syncyo

Now that is brandable.

So then Coinmarketcap will likely refer to our currency unit marketcaps as:

Syncyo Yoobit or just Yoobit
Syncyo Ch'an or just Ch'an

Or:

Syncyo (Yoobit and Ch'an combined)

Feedback please?

I haven't seen a better suggestion than Sync for a block chain 2.0 network. We can use either Sync or BitSync.

I am willing to give up Bits and retain Yoobit or Coolbit (and the plural forms). This seems to simplify and Yoobits are more descriptive than bits. Coolbit is less brandable and seems to imply limitation or non-inclusivity, "tell me about only the cool bits". Note however I did register the domain bits.cool which is nice looking succinct domain. Also I don't see any reason to prefer Yoonit over Yoobit, because users don't think of money as a unit. The Yoo is more meaningful as alternative spelling of You. People may mispell Youbit, so we will need domains for both spellings.

But I also think we need two currency units, because we need to give the market the choice of debasement they prefer. So what to name the other currency unit? No one has expressed support for cha-ching. Why? Does the community like Chan (ch'an)?

The comments are coming in faster than I can respond, but that is good. I will get to all comments including the very important one from coins101 about the block scaling white paper from the researchers who found the selfish mining weakness in Satoshi's proof-of-work consensus.


Realize the Bitcash, Ƀitscash, Ƀitscoin are just domains I've registered to catch those who misunderstand or need the association to Bitcoin. They would redirect to the main domain and the site which would not emphasize the Bits suffixes cash or coin. Our new adopters will be branded that one of the currency names is Bits or Ƀits. I explained in my prior post why I think Bits is not a negative. I am interested to hear your thoughts or rebuttal to my logic on Bits.

Why is Cha-Ching a negative for a third currency unit? It doesn't cost us anything to have 3 currency units instead of only 1 or 2. Cha-ching is the sound of a cash register. It is synonymous with exchanging cash or earning money. I think it comes more from my generation (when the cash registers actually made that sound), but even my 25 year old filipina asian gf (in Philippines never been abroad) had heard the term, but she wasn't quite sure what it meant. She hears it in a social context, "yeah like cha-CHINNNNGGGGG" is what said to me. I asked her what it meant and she didn't know. But it has catchy recall powers.

I am contemplating the reasons that some voters have chosen "problematic" on the latest version of the poll.

Primarily I think they are concerned about the use of Bits when bits had also been proposed for microBTC (but not widely adopted) and Bitstar uses BITS currency unit. I don't think this is problematic because this is open source community (no corporation has trademarked the names) and no one can own a term except by community resistance to others using a term. Thus bits is becoming more synonymous with crypto-tokens, but no one can rightfully claim ownership to bits yet. Thus which ever crypto-token becomes the most popular with the most widely adopted usage of bits will lay claim to the term. Where this matters is amongst the users, not the investors. So far, the of the vast majority of people in the world who actually know of Bitcoin, they do not associate it with bits. They do understand that a bitcoin is a coin with a bit term prefixed, but most people in this world do not know that a bit is a binary digital quantification of information (two states, 0 or 1). So most people refer to Bitcoin as bitcoins and not as bits, because bits doesn't really mean anything to them other than small pieces of a coin. I think this is yet another reason that Bitcoin is an enigma to the masses (wtf is that 'bit' all about  ) and they they thus tend to not trust Bitcoin, because they don't even understand what the name means (it means nothing except it is a bitcoin what ever that is).

So if we name the store-of-value currency Ƀits (with 2 other more social/playful merge-mined currency units, ✨Cha-ching and Cꙭlcash/bits or ¥ꙭbits/nits), then even if the mass market user only thinks of this as "small pieces of money" then at least they will not primarily refer to it as Bitcoin or Bitstar. They have no choice but to refer to it as bits. Thus if we assume that 1% of the people who have heard of Bitcoin think of it as bits instead of bitcoins, then if our user adoption is more than 1% of Bitcoins, then we win the popular adoption of the term bits. Adjust the percentages as you wish.

Even if Ƀits fails in the community, we have the other two currency units as orthogonal. So the project doesn't die for that.

Thus I don't see Ƀits as problematic, but rather leveraging the familiarity with Bitcoin and trying to make it more focused on Bits. Many people might even assume that Bits is some offshoot of Bitcoin. If it becomes popular, they may even assume it is part of the Bitcoin ecosystem (well it is as an altcoin!). So Bits works very well as an upgrade/offshoot to Bitcoin.

Other reasons that voters might think this is problematic include (and this may not be an exhaustive list):

• 3 currency units and a project name (4 names total)
• my plan to not market to speculators at launch
• Sync has many uses already in the market place
• me as only one developer

The justification for the multiple names has been provided over past 2 page threads. Readers can review.

My plan to launch to users is both for legal reasons to avoid being an illegal unregistered investment security as I think all altcoins to date are, but more importantly because I think the only way to build something serious is to target usership. Whether my plan is workable or not is subject to other deliberation which I don't want to engage publicly at this time.

I already covered the Sync trademark issue upthread.

Yes me as one developer is an intense challenge. But any way, you won't be worried about that because if ever I get something that is ready for your investment consumption, then I won't be the only developer by that juncture.

And what is special or memorable about that? It does not even describe any particular special quality of ours.

Do you realize you are talking to someone who has hidden himself away for year or more on multiple occasions to code projects, which I also marketed to great adoption.

I hope you realize you are talking to a 50 year old man, not some inexperienced young developer or marketer.

Feedback and discussion is appreciated, but it should also not treat me as if the person had forgotten what I explained about my background.

Appears you are conflating the name of the currency units which will be something popularly spoken and the block chain consensus network name which will only be spoken by developers and business folk. The block chain 2.0 stuff is for serious business intentions.

Intelligent participants in foreign nations have no trouble in adopting and articulating an English word. Serious usage implies more than a rapid exchange of a name in passing in a bus station. Intel or AMD named one of the CPUs Phenom.

Yeah that works. And Dash now (given by activity in its forums and other rough analysis) has about 10 users and a market cap which is fake.

Dash is the epitome of an echo chamber, and ditto the Altcoin Discussion forum is relatively to the millions and billions of users out there. Because the speculators here in this forum are not even thinking or planning about how to get usership. Rather they think/scheme about how to mine each other.

Either the pie must be made larger, or the slices of the pie must be fought over. This forum and altcoins are in the latter mode.


And serious levels of user adoption, which no altcoin can claim.

No one and no one has yet targeted the users with an altcoin. Period.

Is that a good abstract name for a crypto-project?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Phenom

Anyone who is looking for me to come up with a gimmick to get speculators to pile into a pump, has the wrong developer. There are many other developers who will target that business model.

I am going for serious user adoption and to take on Bitcoin in markets that it is not adept at fulfilling.

I will not be targeting investors nor speculators. If I succeed, they will come around later once they see the adoption and then we have a serious phenomenon and not just another one year fad. Those speculators who take the risk of coming in early when I am not promoting to investors, will either lose everything because my plan is shit or they will end up being early scavengers of the next Bitcoin phenom.

P.S. I was fully aware of the model of DarkCoin, because I helped Evan do it. I was the one who challenged him on using CoinJoin because I reminded him that I had shot down CoinJoin as jammable in Gregory Maxwell's thread when I refuted Greg's claim that adversaries could be blacklisted (which I ponder has to lead to the subsequent ego battle for Greg et al w.r.t. to me). In any case, that interaction between Evan and I and some of my suggestions as to what was technically feasible, lead to masternodes. I quickly realized that this was about a meme, more than a long-term viable technology. Rather than make myself an enemy of all those naive fanboiz, I just agreed that it would work well enough for the time being. And it did! (for the purpose which was to drive speculative investment).

That is all fine and dandy, except it doesn't float my boat. At this stage of my life, I want to do something serious.

The currency names I have chosen are fun for the users. The users are the ones I love. I am not in a particularly love fest with speculators, but I also welcome them but I am not going to just create a product for them and forsake the users.

Then your marketing demographic is speculators. I am selecting currency names that target use case (user) demographics. Users of micro-transactions are not motivated by the increasing appreciation of those units, because they are going to spend them immediately. The use case is for the utility that the currency gives, not for a store-of-value nor speculation. See the table in my prior post (I may have added it after you replied), which details why I think there are three stratifications of money on the internet going forward. In addition to the marketing stratification, I think money itself has to have competing variants as I proposed up thread:


The advantage to users of micro-transactions of a higher debasement rate, is that money will have a much higher velocity of money, because no one has a great incentive to hold it a long time (except as a speculative investment). Thus they will have a better opportunity to attain some. The problem Bitcoin and all crytocurrency has is the investors HODL. That is retarding its adoption! It is very difficult to get investors to understand this (Inflatacoin wasn't successful), so the clever way I have devised is to have merge-mined currencies with different debasement rates. Let the HODLers go more into Ƀits[1], but watch them get jealous when speculators[1] made more gains in ✨Cha-ching due to faster adoption. So then a market arbitrage takes place and the market will figure out the balance. This is sort of like a bimetallic money standard effect.

[1] Disclaimer: I am not promoting any expectation of profits. Investors and speculators will likely lose money at the start. Adoption must precede long-term investment gains.

Because currency markets aren't built from the bottom-up. Individuals would squabble over different ideas and money needs to be universally accepted. Leaders have to give direction which groups naturally follow.


On the internet there are no country barriers, rather cultural and perhaps language. But money even tends to transcend language barriers, because people need to exchange value with those in other cultures.

I rather see money stratifying on type of use cases, e.g. for your $millions in stored value, you don't want that in a currency that is debased 10% per annum (unless the growth of adoption of the currency is outpacing the debasement, but then you are making a speculative investment, and not parking in a store-of-value). These use cases also dictate a demeanor which implies the sort of name which will would appeal to the use case demographic.

_____________
Ƀits	store-of-value and large asset transactions
Cꙭl/¥ꙭbits	virtual goods and services (esp social networking context)
✨(Cha-)Ching	rapid-fire, unconscious micro-transactions

Actually it is not more fun for me. It is agonizing both in terms of level of thrashing in the creative (art) process and because I have much better daily satisfaction when there is some tangible new code completed every day. Naming is not satisfying because it is very rare that you please everyone with a name and get the satisfaction of accomplishment. The naming is only really proven out in the user adoption market. For example, when I selected CoolPage, I didn't even bother to tell anyone (family, etc) and proceeded to let the performance in the market prove it. I think Ethereum (combined with their slick marketing) was able to get altcoin speculators to wet their pants. I don't think I will be able to do that with the naming direction I am on, because I am trying to think in terms of user adoption. Ethereum was not targeting users and instead was targeting investors. Altcoin investors do not seem to be targeting users either, rather they are targeting each other in a greater fool ecosystem. This needs to change. I intend to change it. So I won't really get recognition on this until I prove it, or fail (yikes).

The most satisfaction I had in a long time was the months of March and April, where I programmed a dating/social network per-per-message site. I was even getting into features such as resampling images on the client side in Javascript so that uploads from mobile phones would stop timing out. The major bummer and probably the reason I came back to the altcoin work, is because I couldn't monetize that site with the credit card model of payment. I needed permission-less commerce micro-payments, but they do not exist on this earth yet.

So please bear with me, I am almost done on the naming. Seems like there really isn't any alternative to Sync (but I want to make sure) and 'bits' works well as a base (as I will explain in the next post as a retort to those who think this direction is "problemmatic", especially yoobits wow so brandable but let that sit for a day or two to see if the excitement sticks).

The Ethereum currency units suck for user adoption. What are they again? ethers, finneys, cubeloids, hemorrhoids, parkersonians, geekalots  


I don't believe naming works that way. This is why companies have a VP of marketing (e.g. Steve Guttman the product manager for Adobe Photoshop, then the company I worked for on Corel Painter, and later at Microsoft). I been doing that sporadic naming process since 2014 and the result has been a lot of poor ideas, unsettling, and thrashing (perhaps the best from that 2014 process was 'dots' as a social money but I much prefer 'yoobits', 'coolbits', 'cha-ching'). Marketing requires focus. CoolPage was reasonably obvious because one of the market leaders was Microsoft FrontPage, so it didn't require much deliberation. But this crypto-token naming is much more difficult because not only need to stand out amongst 1000 copycoins, but also we are attempting to name very abstract concepts that people normally take as implicit and not universally named (e.g. money). New monies are not invented often. As well this very abstract concept of money that doesn't physically exist and has no authority, yet is verified (decentralized).


It is possible a better name could be thought of in time, but by putting so much intense thought into it now in one focused spurt, then it becomes less likely. Although the permutation space of English letters is astronomical, the cross-sectional space of apt meanings, phonetic beauty, and spelling sanity is I presume much smaller. Not many great names came to me in sporadic thinking since 2014.

Also another thing is that I don't take downtime when coding. My version of downtime is going out for a hard run for 30 minutes, then right back on the computer. When I was younger, I needed a lot of downtime but that wasn't for thinking, it was for sports, partying, dating, and social interaction. And when I did that downtime, I got completely away from my work and stopped doing it (e.g. after several years of working non-stop under my desk on WordUp in my 20s, I got burned out). I am so social that if I don't bury myself, then I will be easily distracted. So for me, the switch is on or off on coding. I don't mix coding with other activities much. Really I am not balanced person. I tend to do either social or coding, but they don't mix well for me because I am an extrovert. I become introverted only because I am totally engrossed in that creative process. So I have to stay continuously on it, yearning to complete the next task, and the next one. If I start mixing going out to social events and then coming back to work, my work falls apart. Because again I am naturally an extrovert and would gleefully spend all my time doing sports, partying, dating, and goofing off if I didn't feel a higher calling or motivation.

What has been so difficult for me since 2012 is that the illness prevented me from doing the intensity that I need to maintain the momentum of being totally engrossed and motivated by the daily accomplishments. I did briefly regain that form in April 2015, and then I fell apart healthwise by late-July or so (ended up on a 10 day water only fast in August, and spiraling into nearly severe debilitation in September). Now I am on a new therapy for the past 3+ weeks, I've been able to go full blast every day (which is so very encouraging but I still have days or moments where I think that debilitating malaise might be returning, but then I amp up the anti-oxidants/supplements regimen and sleep a lot and feel better again, so hopefully I have a therapy/diet that works).


Yeah those are beautiful. CoolPage was like that. I expended weeks on deciding on the Art-O-matic name and logo concept (and it was my least successful downloadable software project). WordUp (word processor) was easy because I was so carefree in that young age and just nonchalantly adopted the name from a rap song I liked. Back in those days I didn't even ask anyone's opinion. I borrowed $5,000 from my father and ordered 10,000 units of software packaging inventory with that name on it, before I had even completed the project and before it was even known if I could figure out how to distribute a software product (my first venture). I was much more of a maverick at that age. But I was young and nothing to fear (plenty of energy and time to burn). Now I have to be somewhat more circumspect given my age, health, etc.. Btw, I conceptually designed all of the following (and all the text is exclusively mine in my early 20s) and worked very closely with a (female) artist. On CoolPage and Art-O-matic, I worked with a male filipino artist.




I understand. This forum is very difficult to navigate. There are so many different aspects of male competition going on. I am not contented to go with the flow and thus I take a lot of heat. It is difficult to discern the level of support versus other more negative vibes. It would be very difficult to imagine my mental state. Imagine you've been battling against being a zombie basket case, simultaneously trying to do too much and being too controversial. I wake up discombobulated as if been tossed around in a washing machine, because I have so many open threads of work that aren't brought to a cohesive end yet. And so many ongoing fights or undercurrents that come flying out of the woodwork left and right.

I will relish going dark.

If I thought I could do the naming all by myself, I would have. The process of being forced to write down my logic and thought process has pushed me towards refinement. Yoobits did not come from me exclusively.

Before I absorb your post entirely, I woke up with some ideas (my subconscious thoughts) for alternatives to Sync for the project name:

Maestro
Certiorari  (I bet this was planted into my subconscious from my recent legal research where the Supreme Court issued writ of certiorari)
Writ
Virtuoso
Doyen
Deft
Adept
Adroit

What separates these from 'smart' is the implication of speed, dexterity, and/or harmonious coordination/certification.

Of those I liike Maestro and Deft the most. Maestro is in a similar trademark situation as Sync, and I think it is safe enough to use it. Deft has no trademark issues (only use is redirection to rescue.com for computer repair), there are better domains available such as deft.network (although Mæstro.net/.biz are available). Virtuoso is okay but 8 letters long, somewhat difficult to spell. All of these alternatives to Sync don't combine as well with Ƀits or Bloc, should we prefer to qualify as in ɃitSync or BlocSync. For me, Sync is the most descriptive. Synchronized means everything occurring consistency at the same time, thus massive parallelism and instantaneous. Maestro (and Writ, Certiorari, Virtuoso) means one who harmoniously coordinates, but it implies a more top-down coordination and doesn't imply always consistent, rather just a harmonious flow. In other words Maestro loses the instantaneous or fast meaning. Deft has the fast meaning but doesn't convey the parallel consistently, i.e. synchronization. I really think there is no more precise term than Sync for the block chain network.

I assume the meaning you want to capture with Chain and Link, is that the record of the history is securely interlocked. Some other ideas are Woven, Twill. I think it doesn't add up because we want to say something unique about a block chain that Bitcoin doesn't do. I had thought of Weave for an anonymous coin, but that isn't the primary focus of my work. Besides I don't think we say 'anonymous' when we say 'cash'; rather we assume it is.

Now on to the currency unit names...

Yoonit I really like a lot. Very creative, brandable, and great sound. The best idea by far that anyone has given me in this thread. This is a strong alternative to coolbits and I can't decide which I like more. The currency symbol could be ¥ for the larger unit and ꙭ for the smaller units. I don't think there is necessarily any benefit to it sounding like 'unit', so we could use Yoobit instead. In that case, in means "your bit" or "personal money". We want something slightly childish or cartoonish for the social media market. The Asians in particular endear cuteness and youth. If Ƀits is the main serious currency unit, then ¥ꙭbits is the personal ("you"), social context currency unit. Seems to work well conceptually, is one letter shorter than Coolbits, and has a more apropos meaning of "you" (personal, private, autonomous) than "cool" which applies more to the social acceptability and utility of the money (where it is useful in cool settings and applications).

Let's enshrine that statement. Remember you wrote that. Don't forget it when I prove you wrong.

My point was not that some developers don't take the money and run. My point was that developers can take the money and run with mining or with an IPO. To single out IPOs as the only mode of cases where developers take the money and run, is myopic. I gave you specific examples where developers have locked up all the coins in a coin that was mined.

Also your statement that developers should be able to finance the development of the coin is orthogonal and does not address my point. My point was that developers will want to get a ROI on that investment they've made. No one invests without an intention to get a ROI. Now it is possible some may invest and expect their ROI to come from an indirect result, such as some benefits they receive from the ecosystem. You claim that developers take the ROI too soon and run away before delivering a suitable result. I don't disagree with that, but it is orthogonal to the point I made.

You seriously lack logic skills, so I think I will stop replying. I don't have time to argue with someone who doesn't even realize when they are building a strawman or moving the goal posts and not even addressing the points I made.

Your emotional tirades or the style in which you write seems very irrational. Can't you write calmly with correct sentence structure, paragraphs, etc..

You are preaching dogma. How about addressing the facts. I already provided examples where mined coins were just as concentrated in terms of ownership as IPOs.

Hey I am not planning to do an IPO nor a crowdfund. So I have no vested interest to defend IPOs. I am just defending objectivity because you are letting religious fervor overpower your rationality.

I really appreciate the opportunities to see how others think and then respond with my thinking.

This appears to be in category, "descriptive name, e.g. clickz, mycash, bitoken, netoken, cyberbit".

What does smart say that is unique about our project or the target audience?

Smartdraw was a product that helped you draw because it was smart enough to know how shapes aligned, e.g. flow charting shapes.

I think what people want for the block chain network is consistency (no double spends, no errant scripts for programmable block chain), omnipresence, instantaneous, and powerful (programmable).

I think what people want from their currency is ubiquity, liquidity, stability, utility, permission-less, autonomous, fungible, and anonymous. I don't see how smart really talks to those attributes. I think it will be impossible to find one term that describes all those qualities. Thus I look at a high tech fundamental such as Ƀits as enabling all those qualities. K.I.S.S. then brand in the users experience and mind those qualities to the simplest term that can't have any copycat variants such as "Magicbits, Masterbits, Accubits, Bestbits, Pseudobits, Gurubits, Sagebits, Solidbits, Zepherbits, Fastbits, Instabits, etc". In 2014 I did a poll and one of the name choices was ubiqoin. The variants never end and thus none of them are brandable. It becomes a sea of altcoin names.

For the social networking currency, I think the target demographic wants it simple, fun, friendly. Want to capture that in name that they can relate to instantly. "Cha-ching" and "cool cash" seems to be a perfect fit. If we name it something else they might not get that it is money. It was clear that Facebook was a site for faces. Friendster was a site for friends. Monero is money I suppose, but is that as much fun to say as "send me some cool cash" or "send me some cha-ching"?

It is possible that coolbits is superior to coolcash. Thanks for causing me to think of that. I like the sound of coolbits.

---

Edit: I am getting sleepy so I my reasoning or expression of it may be lacking.

Afaics 'smart' doesn't speak to any unique brandable quality.

I am really liking 'coolbits', as it rolls off the tongue much better than "cool cash". It is congruent with the 'Bits' theme. And it has a social networking vibe to it, e.g. my 'privatebits' are cool. The reason I think 'coolbits' doesn't get lost in a sea of '___bits' names is because 'cool' fits the social networking demographic very well. Other descriptive words prepended to '____bits' do not appeal to the demographic, e.g. 'accubits'.

Also I thinking that in this self-publishing (two-way) media of the internet (as opposed to TV and printed media), that users want to express themselves. Although you want money to be universally accepted, people still may have preferences when speaking about money as a social internet concept. With crypto-tokens it should be possible to convert between them in real-time (assuming liquid markets) so that people can express themselves in terms of their preferred named token.

Thus maybe what I should do is have 3 merged-mined currencies with 3 different levels of debasement and money supply, so the market can express itself both in terms of naming preferences and also the complex interaction of different currencies with different rates of inflation and velocities of money. When you mine a winning block, you received some of each currency.

Debasement	Money Supply	Name & Currency Unit
~0%	1 billion	Ƀits
~5%	1 trillion	Cꙭlbits
~10%	1 quadrillion	✨Cha-ching (or we chan if we prefer)

Or you've been sitting on a huge stash of Aeon you got for next to nothing before the 400,000 was gifted to smooth to get his reputation on board, and so now your public game is making everyone think they need to rush to buy, and you private game is taking profits while the bag holders think the party is just beginning.

Again just some conjecture. Who knows.