I hate to break it to you but the markets have not decided anything. Bitcoin has only been viable for 10 years and a lot can happen in 10 years. Many first mover companies like Altavista, MySpace, Yahoo Mail, Vines, Sony Walkman, etc all had "unstoppable" first mover advantages. All are gone now, replaced by successors that saw the flaws in the market leader and fixed them. Gold, Silver, and cigarettes in prison have been market proven. Bitcoin? Let's talk again in 30 years. What I am confident is that Lightning is not the answer for Bitcoin. It's inherently centralizing and works best when custodial. In other words, it's a more fragile and complicated version of Paypal. IMO, other non-custodial payment solutions are possible but Bitcoiner have gotten so complacent that it's likely that other crypto will adopt those solutions before Bitcoin falls behind. In this, Bitcoin is no different than previous technologies with the first mover advantage. Will Bitcoin suffer the same fate? I don't know but complacency that "Bitcoin has already won" is a sure sign that it will fall behind. If you want Bitcoin to succeed and stay successful, you have to adopt the "#Bitcoin is always under threat" attitude so it will always find ways around those threats. That is one advantage #Monero has. It wants to be challenged and flaws exposed so they can be fixed.
 

 Layer 2s are definitely possible, especially with FCMPs and scriptless scripts, but personally I think that Layer 2s are overrated. Most of the uses of Layer 2s, namely programmability, subscription payments, bulk payments to multiple parties, atomic swaps, etc could easily be accomplished using simple programmability with no on chain presence. If I have a contract with you or if I am in a P2P trade with you, why would I have to tell the rest of the world and record that fact forever on a blockchain for others to data harvest? If someone designed a simple UTXO scripting language, it could work with any blockchain and be run on any chain, All that would need to happen is that you'd have to run it in the background on your smart phone or home computer. It could even handle general atomic swaps if both parties run the atomic swap script and have the necessary synchronization checkpoints in place. They key advantage of this approach compared to the L2 approach is that L2s are generally single asset, require extra payments, involve third parties, and out of necessity are slower moving because once a contract is on chain, you have to manage it forever so change is cautious. With offchain scripting, there's little risk to rapid evolution and expaned flexibility, multichain support is easy and there can be multiple approaches or types of scripting allowed. You could have an offchain EVM, I could use Rust scripting, and someone else could use visual scripting and we'd all be able to collaborate. All that needs to be done is to build it for the key POW chains and ETH and there will be enough interest for other chains to want to be involved and add their own scripts.
 

 Monero is audit able. There are only two operations in Monero. Mining and transfers. The block reward is know, especially due to tail emission. For transfers you just need to know that the amount in is equal to the amount out and this can be confirmed through perdersen commitments.  

 Good analogy about the ruler but you're mistaken. Every time you mine a coin, you inflate the supply in both Bitcoin and Monero and you will in both for the next 100 years in Bitcoin. Currently, AFAIK Bitcoin has a higher inflation than Monero until the next halving but you won't notice much of a difference until the halving after that when fees will likely replace inflation to pay the miners in Bitcoin. The inflation in Monero is small, less than Gold, and about the same as the amount of Monero that's lost due to lost wallets, etc. Gold has kept its value for thousands of years so that should not stop Monero from being a store of value. Gold only started to lose its store of value in the 1970s when there wasn't enough gold in circulation and it began to be fractionally reserved...the same as what will happen to Bitcoin when it gets scarce enough. But even with fractional reserves, Gold is still not a bad store of value so I don't think Bitcoin will be harmed too much.