Sure Wayland works fine. What you're not seeing is the hours and hours of volunteer labor wasted to get it to that point. Time that could have been spent working on features users actually cared about, now wasted "adding wayland support" to your favorite applications. If you could quantify it, the waste would be borderline criminal:

- Effort spent writing sway that could have been spent improving i3

- Effort spent writing GNOME-Wayland that could have been spent improving GNOME

- Effort spent writing KDE-Wayland that could have been spent improving KDE (much of this work duplicated effort with GNOME-Wayland)

- Effort spent writing wlroots to try and mitigate the effort being wasted by people writing bespoke compositors

- Wine/Proton devs needing to waste time getting every windows application to work in Wayland

- Firefox needing to target both Wayland and X

- A bunch of graphical toolkits and window managers that were working perfectly fine but will now be "left behind" since they lack the maintainers to support a porting effort

- low-level toolkits like SDL needing to implement their own window decorations now that they're not guaranteed to be provided by the OS (what?!)

What Wayland proves to me is just how easy it is for a small number of developers to unintentionally sabotage productivity in a much larger project.