No. There are no existing shitcoins that have any chance of overtaking Bitcoin. While some may dismiss this as simply "toxic maximalism" there are good reasons to think so.
Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency and as such has a significant first-mover advantage. It is the only digital asset that never had to compete with the well established dominant market leader, because of course it has always been the well established dominant market leader. Every shitcoin must overcome this disadvantage. This is extremely difficult, if not impossible, because of Bitcoin's network effect - the exponential increase in a network's value or utility as the number of users increases. It's not enough for another contender to be marginally better, it has to be so good that it overcomes Bitcoin's head start, a nearly impossible feat considering Bitcoin's dominance after 13 years.
Besides being the first, Bitcoin's history gives it unique advantages that make losing to a shitcoin unlikely. Satoshi Nakamoto discovered Bitcoin and after a few years disappeared, apparently forever. Since then Bitcoin has been completely controlled by its users. Every shitcoin has a known founder, and typically some form of "foundation" that received a large number of pre-mined coins. On the other hand, Bitcoin has no founder with undue influence or closed group of insiders with special access. All of this contributes to Bitcoin's reputation as the undisputed king of the cryptocurrency market, making it an unrivaled brand, and contributing to the network effect discussed above.
The MySpace comparison in particular has several problems. Bitcoin is not an app running on a network like the internet, it is itself a network. Imagine the difficulty of replacing the entire internet with a "better version" of itself. It would be similarly difficult to replace Bitcoin, and becomes increasingly more difficult each year it continues to dominate (Lindy effect). While social media platforms also benefit from the network effect, the switching costs were insignificant at a time before social media reached its current heights of popularity. MySpace was the first (2003) but Facebook was developed soon after (2004) so the first-mover advantage was not as significant as many people seem to believe.
Eventually something may replace Bitcoin but this is likely to be as similar to Bitcoin as Bitcoin is to gold. Gold wasn't replaced by another metal, but by something completely different; as different as candles and light bulbs, or horses and automobiles. Nothing like Bitcoin will replace it because any advancement worth switching for, that could overcome the network effect and first mover advantage, could be added to Bitcoin making it pointless to switch afterall. Perhaps someday some unimaginable new technology might succeed in dethroning the king. Until then "waiting for the next big thing" makes as much sense as not using the internet because it might someday be replaced.