The point is not that nobody sees benefits in Wayland, but that the case for switching is a lot more ambiguous. There's a substantial proportion of people for whom it is a loss of functionality or effort for no benefits. With systemd there was no loss of functionality - it is compatible enough that if you don't make use of the new functionality you don't lose anything. With Wayland, if you depend on any number of different functionality aspects, you either lose functionality or have to pick specific compositors that implement additional protocols.
With respect to my time investment, it's down to having to switch window manager. I'm using bspwm, and rely extensively on the API it provides. I could probably transition that to sway if I had to. But I have no incentive to. It gives me no new functionality and solves no problems I'm having.
So I'll stay on Xorg until an incentive appears to justify the fairly significant time cost of reworking my workflows and/or a bspwm compatible compositor arrives (there's been an issue open for 5 years, and at least one - abandoned - attempt).
The time investment required to switch also means I'd be prepared to invest quite a lot in getting Xorg running if the situation is the same down the line at a point where I can't get an "off the shelf" dpkg of Xorg.
At the pace Wayland efforts are moving, I suspect I'll still be on Xorg in 5 years, and wouldn't be surprised if I still was on it in 10.
But really, the main point of my earlier comment was that there are real, concrete reasons for people not to move to Wayland that has nothing to do with belief. It would take time I don't have to make the move, and it doesn't provide me any benefits to justify putting aside other things to invest that time. Maybe one day it will, but it won't be any time soon.