Not the person you're asking, but hosting a game server is one example where you probably wouldn't want to go through Tailscale, due to the added latency. A Plex server might be another one if Tailscale has bandwidth limits. (I could be wrong here - I'm on a static IP, so I've never used Tailscale)
Also, in general, it just adds a layer of complexity that I wouldn't want to deal with if I didn't have to.
> if Tailscale has bandwidth limits. (I could be wrong here - I'm on a static IP, so I've never used Tailscale)
Tailscale connections are primarily peer to peer. The service Tailscale is providing is orchestrating the connectivity and hiding the complexity, but the data flows directly.
Except that P2P mode tends to simply not work in cases where both of the clients are in CGNAT networks (unless both of them happens to have IPv6 addresses). Even Tailscale acknowledges this sad fact (https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works#have-you-...) because in practice CGNAT operators deploy an endpoint-dependent NAT (aka symmetric NAT) without the possibility of port mapping.
You can use Zerotier which doesn't have the problem. Some public nodes will assist with the nat traffic. It's not an ideal situation to be in and it's a bit slower, but at least it will work.
The internet is supposed to be peer-to-peer, and I shouldn't need third-parties in between my computers, or between my friends and me. Switching to IPv6 breaks the peer-to-peer nature of the internet.
Also, in general, it just adds a layer of complexity that I wouldn't want to deal with if I didn't have to.