Dash is not in competition with Monero, which is not a cryptocurrency, was not designed as a cryptocurrency and is unlikely to ever perform a cryptocurrency role other than as a minority speculative asset (as it is does right now).
Monero (or
the original design specification that characterises cryptonote's behaviour) is a cryptographic record keeping system designed to track money in a bank. What some fly developer decided to do (wittingly or unwittingly) is lift the template for the record keeping system, ditch the bank and try to get away with calling the residual cryptographic transport mechanism "money".
Toknormal you have not the slightest clue how the technology works. The NSA document you linked bears no resemblance at all to how cryptonote works.
In fact cryptonote works almost exactly the same way as Bitcoin or Dash, but with different formats for addresses and signatures, while the document you linked works nothing like Bitcoin and discusses almost exclusively Chaum's e-cash schemes that preceded Bitcoin both chronologically and as a matter of fundamental design iteration (specifically the major advance of Bitcoin, and retained in both Dash and cryptonote, was to remove the bank function that you are confused about).
You would do your cause good to actually learn something about the design of what it is you are flailing around trying to criticize and avoid citing documents that are not only off-base from a technical perspective, but bear exactly the same relationship to Dash as they do to Monero in terms of technical lineage.
Metals, Coal and even Paper cash do not have privacy "buit into them".
This is fundamentally wrong. Physical money is inherently private in that only the parties transacting have knowledge of the transaction (unless they choose to share that knowledge). Bitcoin removed this privacy by making all transactions public to every third party in the world. More private systems like Dash and Monero try to restore the original property of being private-by-default. Peter Todd has his opinion about which is more of a valid solution, as do both of us. Two of those opinions are well-informed.