I've been a user of Arch for the past several years and I've always been a huge proponent of the rolling release model. When I first picked up Arch, it was because I needed more modern versions of several tools than were packaged with Fedora or Ubuntu and Arch was a really easy way to get those updates. No more waiting 6 months for the next release cycle to get a new piece of software (yes, I know, "compile it yourself" is always an option--but, I've personally found that nothing destabilizes my system like adding a bunch of software from outside the package manager).

I find my own argument somewhat less compelling today. With systems like Flatpak gaining traction, we're seeing a trend towards separating the Operating System (and I'm thinking more of the overall foundations of a complete, modern system, not just OS = Linux kernel) from the applications for that operating system. Existing package managers handling the OS while Flatpak, AppImage, Snap, etc. become how applications are installed and managed seems to be a good direction.

To be clear, the divide today is far from perfect and we still run into the "Are you running the Flatpak or the distro version of X?" There are also compatibility issues to be worked out. All that said, I do still find the story of "a stable OS with up-to-date applications" compelling.