Bitcoin, Monero, and Zcash are all three coins taking different approaches.
Zcash is a corporate coin, looking for complete legal compliance, and people to throw money into it like an investment, it has strong technology but has very weak community driven funding focus, it's the fastest, and most private of the three but the community lacks the cypherpunk, and crypto-anarchist attitudes.
It has a limited cap of 21 million like Bitcoin because it believes the appreciation, and usage will keep miners incentivized.
Bitcoin is a hybrid of institutional investment, and Cypherpunks/Crypto-anarchists, Bitcoin started off as uncompliant, anonymous devs, totally self-funded community looking to undermine the financial system but somewhere along the line, one or multiple of the devs got corrupted by corporate interests, which has made the tug of war between privacy, and appreciation the toughest, the privacy, and P2P people have been fighting to undermine corporate interests to protect their freedom to transact, however the institutional investors in Bitcoin don't want Bitcoin to be private as it makes regulation impossible.
You have P2P funding, and organizational P2P funding but then also corporate funding, you have organizations which are essentially institutions in theory but act more effectively as focusing P2P community funding like OpenSats, which otherwise would've been small scattered donations here, and there, OpenSats takes the donations and hones in unlike conventional P2P funding, whereas you have Gemini, and Blockstream funding which totally sabotages Bitcoin privacy to keep it compliant, and profitable.
21 Million supply is a response to endless money printing that we've seen the last 20 years, and believes a scare money will increase purchasing power, and improve normal people's lives.
Monero is purely self funded by the community, and sacrifices compliance, and institutions for privacy.
A notable percent of the devs are anonymous, and continue to defy their governments orders to stop doing Monero work since the government wants this individuals found, and tried.
Monero self-funds most if not all of its projects through both P2P methods, and semi-instituional means through the community crowdfunding system, which is P2P, and magic grants which is a hybrid of community funding, and institutional funding.
Monero makes the argument that artificial scarcity causes deflation which is dangerous, and causes both miners, and the ecosystem to stagnant as HODLing would spell death, tail emissions keeps supply circulating while combating inflation by issuing a predictable amount of currency.
Monero doesn't not have a supply cap but under current network protocols makes the tail emissions of 0.6 XMR every 2 minutes.
Overall, they have similar intended ends but different methods on achieving those goals, and I think each one brings a notable benefit despite the different trade-offs.
Without one, or the other, experimenting to improve monetary transactions wouldn't be possible.
Right now we have the choices to see what works, and what doesn't, and make the best tradeoffs.
If everyone was only focused on one coin it would cause endless conflict and hurt monetary freedom.
