Yea same, Liquid never made sense to me either if you have something like Monero available to use. Liquid only hides amounts, but you can see the transaction graph (who is sending and receiving), anon set is vanishingly small, IP origin not hidden by default, and it is a permissioned network. Price fluctuation is negligible, or can even be slightly to your benefit if you are using Monero short term. And far less people accept or use Liquid than even Monero.
The downward slide brought by gold-backed reserves is what slowly brought us to this moment in fiat world. That is why final settlement (bearer assets) are important (and arguably a massive reason why Bitcoin was created). Imo there is little reason to have a non-final settlement/bearer asset in the digital realm. It doesn't have the same downsides as physical bearer assets like gold (heavy, slow, tedious, expensive to transport). Although, I can see the other side of the argument that at least it is transparent and auditable (unlike fiat) and you can just use it for small spending amounts. Even besides that point - Lightning has so many other problems that Monero (or even Bitcoin) doesn't:
-relies on large middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees,
-need capacity to recieve
-can't send modestly large amounts
-both parties must be online at time of transaction to transact
-can be rugged if your node isn't active
-bad receiver privacy and hidden balances can be discovered by a passive adversary
-can be force closed onto the base chain against your will
-ability to grief honest users with zero cost
-worst of all it isn't even a real solution for scaling
https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations/
I sympathize somewhat with BCHers because it is at least a better way to do it if you are going to do it. Not 100% safe, but 0 conf is much safer for them because they dont have RBF (Replace by fee) like BTC and further make it safer by implementing DSP (Double Spend Proofs). So the vast majority of the risk is within the first 3 seconds of a transaction if i remember correctly. And it automatically settles shortly after, unlike holding lightning.
Think of what would happen if Bitcoin Core implemented a change that Bitcoin users didn't want. Users who didnt like it would just refuse to adopt it and refuse to update to that version. Same thing that would happen with Monero. What Bitcoiners really want is compatibility with all versions and networks, but no market works like that and doesn't have to. Imo people don't owe compatibiltiy with others. Freedom of association. The same way businesses can offer CDs still, but don't have to if they don't want to. It's nice but not necessary. If there is demand they will. And those who want to will offer both. Transparency of code, permissionlessness, and ability to opt out is what is most important imo.
I don't like ordinals either. I think it is a glaring example of Bitcoins non-fungibility that it is still even possible and easy to do.
"You don't ask nicely that everyone else not spend your coins; You just protect them using a cryptographic key.
Similarly, you don't ask nicely everyone else not distinguish your monetary units; You just make them *technically* indistinguishable AKA fungible."
-BinaryFate
This line of reasoning makes sense to me.