...there are people like you that are believers in what I call "onecoin". This is the flawed concept that there can only be the one coin, no matter what that coin does.
...people that want to trade and park their money in an anonymous currency now have two technologies to choose from. And anyone smart will put their money in both. (hedging in case the tech in one of them ever fails)
Regarding the first point, the dominant counter-argument is that liquidity is a natural monopoly, because liquidity abhors frictions. There is only one coin which presently offers a usable level of liquidity with fungibility. In order to seize that crown will require an order-of-magnitude improvement (and definitely not an ambiguous corporate unfair Mossad-coin).
Regarding the second point, hedges are not all alike. Some cost more than they are worth. Buying things that cost more than they are worth is not a good strategy. (Personally I would like to see ZK anon support folded into XMR. I'm not sure how yet. I am beginning to work on a draft, but it is very incomplete.)
I do agree that apples and oranges are different things. Ethereum does fulfill a very different function. But it has severe flaws, two of which suffice to spoil it for me: Firstly, there is the governance risk implied by the cult of Vitalik. We saw how disastrous this could be in the DAO fork. Secondly, the very notion of "Turing-complete" platform is fundamentally broken and mistaken: All contracts must be
decidable. I consider these reasons sufficient to believe that some other platform will be the dominant smart-contract platform.
