@Moon btrfs is meant to be more flexible than zfs while also using newer technology; having different policies on files alone or folders without requiring to create subvolumes for example for compression, raid/mirroring etc is seriously neat, with all the validation stuff that exists and it being overall lighter than zfs

to me it seems as though btrfs is in quite a weird position, I believe, as it tries to be the "ultimate filesystem" both for end users and the industry at large; but the big industry doesn't run out of disk space and doesn't worry about that, but they finance its development; while end users do worry about disk space and don't care about most features but don't finance it, so they're not prioritised