The newness of the algo is not an issue--if the coin does the most with that algo (ct development, strongest network, ect,) the coin it was forked from has lost first mover advantage, so becomes a non-issue.
From what I know, this doesn't happen usually.
No sha coins ever got close to Bitcoin, no scrypt coins got close to Litecoin.
The only possible exception may be Monero (for now!), since its "path" was not so problematic as the competition and the devs may have been somehow more skilled.
Of course, crypto world is young...
The coin is more anonymous than any other (no coin ATM is NSA proof) and continually working to strengthen its anonymity with measures like ct and kovri development with I2p--I think you are making the mistake of most people when they talk about fungibility when describing it as yes/no, on/off, either you have it or you don't--this is wrong in both cases as they happen in degrees. Can't really keep people from thinking in only binary terms, but I can certainly tell you that it shows a lack of insight or nuance in your conception cryptocurrencies, and you'd be good to learn how to judge these technologies in a nuanced way--though that takes some work, I'm sure it would be worth your time.
Nuances are important and I agree that I tend to be a yes/no person sometimes.
But all I've heard until now about zerocash were big words from some and then I've read that's beta and beta again. I've also read that zerocash anonymity starts with an assumption, so it may be problematic.
I somehow start to believe that you though that my second part of that previous comment is also about Monero, while it was about zerocash...