Totally agreed. This is seriously overthought. Users need to be able to tell in an eyeblink what the order is without reference to some standards document. Presumably everybody to whom it applies can count.

For a web app under continuous release, I would suggest doing both.

230-12-01-2020 to mean the 230th release since the start of the project, made on January 1st, 2020.

Why not 230-2020-12-01 to avoid the awkward 'US order or 'most-of-the-rest-of-the-world order' issue?

Edit: the great irony is that your example included an error which I then reproduced! Obviously, 1st jan is unambiguously:

230-2020-01-01

If you were representing 1st dec, though, I’d suggest:

230-2020-12-01

Actually I was trying to avoid the US date standard myself, then got confused and wrote a date that follows no standard that I know of. My mistake entirely.

230-12-01-2020 to mean the 230th release since the start of the project, made on January 1st, 2020.

Surely this is either released on the first of December or the 12th of January?

That's just US date trolling.

While versioning for libraries is important, and one could argue about different ways, app versions (ie mobile or desktop) with anything other than whole integers is dumb. Our mobile apps have versions like X.Y.Z and X changes at random times for no reason, and in general in mobile you never see the version anyway, and with auto updating on customers don't even notice.