Re: So what
I'm not sure that there *is* a compelling case for a single end-user to run IPv6. SLAAC is easier than DHCP, but if you have a decent consumer router then the combined DHCP+DNS in that box ought to be working fine without you needing to understand it.
There certainly is a compelling case for *everyone* to use it, since we are now well over the IPv4 addressing limit and routing tables at the backbone level are stupidly large. The IPv6 address space is large enough that routing can be done purely by prefix and routing tables become pretty trivial. That benefits everybody, but not by much until nearly everybody has switched (which is probably why no-one sees any personal benefit in being an early adopter).
As regards "other features of IPv6", things like IPsec have mostly been back-ported to IPv4 as far as I can see and whilst it is true that you should not rely on NAT for domestic protection, I believe it is also true that no consumer routers actually do. (People may *say* they are relying on it, but their router always *does* have a firewall.)
There are a few kinds of end-user-facing applications that would be easier to configure under IPv6, but whether it is safe for the majority of end-users to deploy such apps on their network is another matter. It seems to me that you only need IPv6 addressing within your home network if you have a device there that you want to expose to world+wife and it also seems to me that most people should be dissuaded from doing that.
On the other hand, if all your shinies actually support IPv6 (and it has been in all mainstream OSes for the last ten years) and your ISP and router support it, then I can see no downside to leaving it enabled. I imagine that eventually IPv4 will be confined to squillions of (domestic) islands populated by ageing and probably vulnerable gadgets, now safely firewalled off from the wider IPv6 internet, which switched off all IPv4 support because no-one could be arsed to maintain the terabyte-sized routing tables required to make it work.