You betray your ignorance of wayland

The existing robust X backends aren't just going to evaporate, the toolkits are already multi-platform and Wayland is just an additional backend.

> So are the advantages of Wayland with X layered on top substantial enough that it is a major improvement over the status quo?

Yes, it takes the hardware handling out of X and leaves it with just the protocol to support existing apps. The hardware handling can be much better done outside of the X framework than within it. X can be much simpler and more robust if it isn't trying to handle the underlying hardware.

> Or do the real advantages of Wayland only come when you eliminate the X layer in-between?

There is probably sufficient advantage even if the only native Wayland client was the X server although in practice toolkits are going to have a direct Wayland option and eliminate the middleman for local display (only).

> Couldn't you just have libXCB or whatever have multiple backends, one a stub for remote operation using the X protocol, and the other an in-process rasterizer for use with Wayland, etc?

I may be talking above my knowledge level but my guess is that X apps and toolkits just aren't architected in a way where that makes any sense. The people who are designing and implementing Wayland are also the ones who designed and maintain X so my guess is that they are aware of the different architectural options and are picking the best ones.