I don't want to be defensive but this is completely off base, and very disheartening to see you post. Allowing users to write safe self-referential code was never a design goal of Pin - only to make it safe to manipulate self-referential objects generated by the compiler, which it has succeeded at. The incredibly overblown soundness hole had far more to do with the quirks of #[fundamental] than Pin (and the soundness hole is being resolved without changing the Pin APIs at all or breaking any user code).
The guarantees of Pin are now even being used beyond self-referential types but also for intrusive data structures in tokio's concurrency primitives. Pin is not for everyday users, but it is one of the greatest success stories of Rust's unsafe system. That you would call it a mess to a forum of non-users is quite disspiriting.
Sorry, I should have phrased that in a kinder way.
The fact that Pin is expected to enable more than it does is part of the problem. It's not for usual self-referential structs. It's not for usual umovable types. It has 2000 words of documentation, and I'm still not sure what to do with it. I need to understand pin/unpin, structural/non-structural projections, and drop guarantees. It has a lot of "you can do this, but then you can't do that" rules that the compiler can't help with.
For me most Rust features are either easy to understand (like UnsafeCell or MaybeUninit), or I can rely on the compiler make me use them correctly (like borrowing or generics). But with Pin my impression is that it pushes the limits of what can be done without compiler's safety net.
The guarantees of Pin are now even being used beyond self-referential types but also for intrusive data structures in tokio's concurrency primitives. Pin is not for everyday users, but it is one of the greatest success stories of Rust's unsafe system. That you would call it a mess to a forum of non-users is quite disspiriting.