Are log-scale charts more representative of long-term asset performance than regular y-axis charts?

To most accurately assess the long-term performance of an asset, does it make more sense to look at it with a logarithmic y-axis? I understand that this type of y-axis makes percentage movements equivalent on the chart, rather than the absolute price numbers. To me, this seems to make sense since an asset moving from $6->$12 is equivalent in performance as it is from $3,000->$6,000 and not using a log scale in this case would make the former move seem completely insignificant, despite its equivalence.

Intuitively, I follow this the logic but it appears to make certain assets of mine look more rosey than they do on the normal scale; they ran up a ton and then experienced significant corrections and in absolute price terms the charts look like there’s been devastating decline. On the log charts, though, these corrections appear exceedingly minor.

As a long term holder and believer in the fundamentals of the asset and its future, this makes me feel secure and less emotional about these corrections. However, I want to make sure I am not missing or misunderstanding some nuance in these log charts that is luring me into a false sense of security.

To be clear, I have not made my long-position decision based on charts; it is purely on fundamentals. I am just looking to fully understand the picture shown to me on log charts.