This message is full of personal opinion/ bias and should be regarded as such...
@fehlix @asqwert @baldyeti I think what I'm learning as I play with things is as follows:
-- LXQT is really not quite ready for prime time (probably why it's still a point release).
-- Openbox (the LXQT native, ancient wm), xfwm4, kwin all need tweaks if LXQT is to achieve a 'more modern' look & feel.
-- In my playing around, I 'generally like the results kwin produces better than those of either xfwm4 or openbox. (Note: if it were me, I'd lose openbox. opps.)
From a personal perspective I find these to be some of the bigger issues:
-- Desktop icons (they are funky and erratic): sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. This issue seems to be understood by the LXQT team, but I have not found an actively pursued approach.
-- OS functionality is limited in base LXQT e.g., the need for a wm, additional system tools (like those from MX or Sparky)
-- I personally see PCfileman as cumbersome (but I'm one of three Thunar biased people, I think.
Probably due to 15 years of having used Thunar. Who knows?)
-- LXQT menu needs work, to my mind; the search function is quirky. For me at least, their menu does not flow naturally. And in my testing, third party launchers like plank, docky, gnome-pie, are not happy on the LXQT desktop.
-- I am, also, not certain that "once" LXQT is built to reasonably complete level of functionality it will be all that light...
The bottom line is that a good LXQT-based distro will take quite a bit of work to become smooth, whether it is built using MXLinux, Sparky, manjaro (arch), or "whatever".
(I have tried the three mentioned.)
As an aside, a good example of a team working hard to make LXQT look good and modern, with a totally different approach, is PeppermintOS (I do like what they have done).
But I have to say, even there the chinks in the armor show through (like using dconf to edit the Desktop... nemo's 'integration'.. etc.)