Really sad but that is how it is.
I was also waiting for onchain privacy for 13 years, now i convert BTC to Monero and the more i think about it, the less arguments i find why is should store wealth in a open public ledger at all?
Discussion
If you know of a better place to store wealth, I'm all ears. Monero clearly hasn't been the place
Some see a multi year opportunity, some do not.
Brian the type of guy that praises Bitcoins decentralized ledger, but always shows you a centralized ledger price chart
Brian the type of guy that talks about Bitcoin being permissionless, but then shows you permissioned white market transactions
Brian the type of guy that speaks about privacy, but still uses a transparent ledger
Pretty big difference a decentralized ledger and a centralized price chart. Not everything is improved with decentralization
Except that data is all from Bitcoin moving around on centralized ledgers AKA centralized exchanges, so no, not really a difference at all
This should be talked about and investigated more. Meme'd.
Wash trading is sort of the boogeyman Maxi's avoid talking about.
The decentralised ledger you are speaking about is traded 99.9% on centralised exchanges that can do all sorts of price manipulation and fractional reserve.
But we know already that Bitcoin is decentralisation is about nodes and only about nodes. All other metrics are ignored as they would show that BTC is just one implementation if an idea and within millions of actual shitcoins there are some gems like Monero that improved on Bitcoin's original design in many important ways increasing decentralisation in nodes (more than BTC), mining (every device on this planet can be a dedicated miner), P2P pools, and a DEX ecosystem independent of any KYC surveillance custodian that will rug you becayse they feel like it or on behalf of governments.
Once you understand that market data gets manipulated to the extremes on centralised exchanges to keep the fiat system going for a little while longer you can not make it unseen.
You will come around. But it will take you a couple of month at best or a couple of years at worst (for yourself).
You will remember this conversation just like people remember every word I said about Bitcoin early on.
I've always said that the magical properties of bitcoin's decentralization don't do diddly squat for all the people who got pushed into custodians by a horrible roadmap. it means nothing if bitcoin is decentralized.
You can store in BTC and spend XMR you know.
It's not either/or.
The question I was responding to is "why is should store wealth in a open public ledger at all?"
Now do XMRUSD or Gold. Your chart is reflecting the increased price of Bitcoin not the decrease or loss in value of XMR .
When compared with Usd/gold XMR has been quite stable.
If your one value prop is NGU, you're in for a bad time.
XMR's value prop is being Money. No L2's , smart contracts, EVMs, tokens. 
We can also compare to the Turkish Lyra or whatever other shitcoin comparison makes you feel better. The question was about storing wealth.
Montero is a waste of time that is not used enough, which means its blockchain is insecure. No thank you.
monero does 10% of BTC tx volume daily.
how does that make it insecure?
It's a lot less than 10%. On average, Monero's daily transactions are 5-7% of #bitcoin's in the last year, which means significantly lower hashrate. It is much easier for a well-funded entity to execute a 51% attack on Monero; in fact, that's why supporters of Monero asked miners to leave pools in 2022.
You have some weird ideas.
For one, while tx volume and hash rate might be correlated, there's no direct connection.
So starting off I'm pretty sure you're not terribly informed.
Also, while a 51% may be easier to execute "that's why they asked miners to leave pools...?"
This is nonsensical.
Ill give to the 5-7% though. 25k *actual economic txs* per day is still awesome.
Not nonsensical. If a pool controls the 51%, it can rewrite the blocks. Look at why the price of xmr has steadily decreased since 2022. It's due to a greatly increased risk of this happening.
And the higher the hashrate is (assuming it is relatively decentralized), the more expensive a 51% attack is. This is the security factor. Bitcoin has the highest hash rate of all crypto currencies and is decentralized enough to make a 51% attack way too expensive to consider. Game theory suggests that's it's a better economic decision to buy bitcoin and lose some privacy vs than to opt for privacy and have your chain rewritten and lose all of your value.
Every PoW crypto has completely different algos. Makes no sense to simply point to pure hashrate and say that is what makes Bitcoin more secure.
Decreasing price is due to everyone being scared of that specific thing happening? Where in the world did you pull this one from
What a jump
Dude over 51% of your mining pools require KYC. That's not a security problem lol?
Miners also have the potential to perform targeted transaction censorship on Bitcoin which isn't possible on Monero.
Yes, that second shit freaks me out.
I'm not saying KYC is desireable, but it has nothing to do with the network's security.
Separately, I do not see the point of a currency that is losing value over time and the exchanges are delisting. The message to the initiated is that monero is failing (and as a practical matter it is). That's a doom cycle and a waste of time.
You're saying regulations and identities tied to miners aren't a security problem for Bitcoin when it's over 51% of hashrate?...
Explain why white market transactions on exchanges matter for permissionless money? One excludes the other. Black markets are the only place where you can make permissionless transactions. Every single Bitcoin transaction on the white market is permissioned so defeats the entire value prop of Bitcoin. If you're going to follow the rules for a transaction you might as well use fiat.
Meanwhile Monero is eating Bitcoins lunch in the only place where permissionless transactions exist
hate to break it to you 
Mining pools aren't a security threat and aren't examples of centralization of hash power. They represent individual miners. They don't own the hash power. The minute the pool operators advocate for things that violate the individuals' best interest, the pool breaks up. This is pretty basic stuff.
Well you were insisting it was a problem for monero.
So is it or isn't it smarty-pants?
The point was the ease with which an entity could reach the 51% level. Not that it was a pool. If you have a smaller number of total miners, it is easier for hostile groups to attack the network. This effect is made worse when mining is unprofitable. There's so much hash power on the bitcoin network that the cost to capture enough of it for a 51% attack is massive. This along with the tens of thousands of nodes that would have to accept the eventual rewrite of the blocks and wouldn't keeps the network secure.
In other words, its got nothing to do with pools at all.
It's also not about # of hashes, its about energy consumption.
You can either have centralized ASIC farms prone to govt pressure using lots of energy
or decentralized low energy hashing impossible to pressure.
everything is tradeoffs.
Energy consumption isn't a demon unless your total energy cost is low enough that a single centralized entity can easily capture the hash power. This is the problem with a small "efficient" miner base, distributed or not. When I say security, I'm thinking about network integrity, not opsec. In this case, the biggest network with the most individual miners wins.
There is a lack of understanding that takes nocoiners a couple of years to understand Bitcoin.
And the same applies to Monero. You hardly will find a Bitcoiner 2009-2014 that doesn't have a big position in Monero.
It's mainly newer Bitcoiners with less experience < 10 year in the space who are still in the process of figuring it out. But as many before you and me show it's a constant process and one after another will follow.
Bitcoin + Monero together are invincible.