You have been reading a cointelegraph article. Bitcoin could be technically better off with a few future changes, it would be better off if segwit2x had gone through but that magically didn't happen for a reason last year, and immediately after the cancellation a dedicated attack by BCH followed.

This and what followed demonstrates there are focused interests at work that only use technicalities as arguments to motivate the sheeple in and out of certain coins, given that I won't waste time following tendentious arguments like 'it's lookingvery old, fragile, lethargic and paralyzed.

It's an oxymoron insofar as BCH, as a completely random example isn't much better, less secure and centralized like hell, and in the face of the fact that your argument about old coins not being future-resistant bodes badly for most of the ones existing today. All of them, in fact, even the entire ETH universe. But people like the exchange-centralized coins as they are so symbolic... nobody out there even KNOWS BTS.

The attackers of Bitcoin have managed to damage the brand and bottom the market, but little else as by now everybody accepts Bitcoin as a store of value, while transactions are obviously going the Ripple, Lumens and decentralized exchange way.
And the way of the institutions and states, who will soon all have coins of their own.

Nothing to gain here folks. Move on.
As to Bitshares, my only objection is that better platforms will be coming along that will make it obsolete, like steemit is becoming obsolete, or that its acceptance will just not be happening as institutions won't globally accept it and regulators cut it down.
Which is basically the same argument as the one about Bitcoin.

Not even Ripple is going to be used by the institutions in the long run, they're going to have their own system and the masses will follow and use them as they need to have someone making decisions for them.
Decentralized thinking is just not what a majority of the human herd is capable of or interested in.