I really would like more data about it. My impression is that the biggest limitation that btrfs suffers nowadays is a severely lacking communication. Even the official wiki is not so up to date, and there are a lot of horror stories surviving from years ago.
The situation has been quite reliable for some time now (single disk, raid{0,1,10}), moreover the feature set of btrfs is really wide (on par with zfs), with a very high flexibility: you can mix and match disks of different capacities, shrink and expand pools, change their redundance level through filtering, everything can be done online...
Even it it doesn't break your filesystem anymore: Performance is subpar in all aspects except sequential read/write even compared to ZFS. high snapshot count degrades performance and lot's of gotchas you discover after using it for a while. RAID1 is not RAID1 - it's oddness of the pid decides which disk to read from... scrub impacts io massivly. Tooling and documentation is not exactly great... lot's of quirky hacks to make up for design errors IMHO.
If it works for you, fine. Also it appears to get better - I won't touch it anymore if I can avoid it.
The situation has been quite reliable for some time now (single disk, raid{0,1,10}), moreover the feature set of btrfs is really wide (on par with zfs), with a very high flexibility: you can mix and match disks of different capacities, shrink and expand pools, change their redundance level through filtering, everything can be done online...