Huh? Nodes are ipv4 only by default with measures in place limit subnet abuse and other means of Sybil attacks. It's assured that the node diversity is higher than in something like Bitcoin that permits incoming Tor connections for p2p connections and doesn't limit subnets or ipv6 only nodes.

For those with more limited network knowledge this lowers the barrier for entry for one entity with control of a client or datacenter to spin up thousands of unique appearing nodes.

Also bitcoins culture is way less "run your own node" focused. I'd posit that a higher percentage of Monero users run their own compared to Bitcoin.

Also, due to dynamic block sizes, monero can sustain orders of magnitude more on-chain activity than Bitcoin before needing a level 2. And lightning is EXTREMELY centralized. Even if used in the most sovereign way with LND behind Tor, you're still dealing with a hub-and-spoke node model which makes timing attacks easier. But regardless almost all volume is through custodians or LSP providers like Phoenix so that point is null.

Am I wrong in any of these counter arguments? If not how then does monero not stay decentralized in scaling? How do you even come up with that claim that's not even the main "monero is a shitcoin" cope.