Asteroids contain metals in quantities that dwarf terrestrial reserves. That fact is repeated as though it settles the question of whether mining them makes sense. It does not.
The cost problem
Reaching an asteroid, extracting material, and returning it to Earth costs vastly more per kilogram than the material is worth at any current price. Launch costs have fallen substantially and the gap remains enormous.
The price problem
Returning a large quantity of a precious metal would crash its price. The value of the cargo depends on scarcity, and delivering it in bulk destroys the scarcity. That is a structural trap, not a temporary condition.
Where the case is stronger
Not returning material to Earth, but using it in space. Water for propellant and life support, metals for construction, anything that would otherwise have to be launched from the ground.
That only becomes valuable when there is substantial activity in space that needs supplying. Currently there is not, and building the supply chain before the demand exists is a bet with a very long payback.
What has actually happened
Sample return missions, which have brought back grams for scientific study at costs measured in hundreds of millions. Extraordinary science and the opposite of commercial mining.
Several companies founded on the mining premise, most of which have closed or pivoted.
What would change it
A permanent presence in space large enough to consume resources at scale. That is a multi-decade prospect at minimum, and mining follows it rather than preceding it.
The honest summary
Geologically real, economically absent, and likely to remain so until there is somewhere in space to sell to.