Sorry, but at least two of your points are factually incorrect.
* ReFS is lacking a few notable features, including file compression / encryption, sparse files, hard links, extended attributes, disk quotas, and others. You could say that the only notable improvements over NTFS that it has would be much improved resiliency and higher capacity limits. You can't compare this to BrtFS. At all. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. ReFS is there to store millions of large files and managed bad blocks in a smart way without taking the volume offline. It supports little else.
* Dynamic access control can't even be compared to SELinux. SELinux can restrict a program to running from a certain location, it can restrict which ports in the TCP/IP stack it can/can't open, it can restrict which hosts a specific process can talk to, and yes, it can alter the fundamental view of the file system hierarchy based upon access levels granted. Dynamic access control is really just more complexity in the form of an ACL on top of the already present windows file system ACLs, and it impacts nothing outside of files. Now, you can use claims (which dynamic access control is built upon, at least partially) to control other aspects of your environment, but that isn't "dynamic access control" as far as MS is concerned. Further, it really is another layer of complexity -- if your claims server (which is a web server(!)) goes down, you're losing access to stuff (but if you're a decent sized MS shop, this will likely not be an issue, as you're already maintaining decent uptime on your DCs). Then the file system level ACL comes into play again. It's going to be crazy stupid hard to diagnose a claims access issue in a large production environment, no matter what MS has done towards fixing these issues. Somewhat amusingly, dynamic access control isn't supported on ReFS at all .
Now normally I'd just trust you that you googled around to find this stuff, but you've got some powershell in your signature, which leads me to believe that you've done a bit more checking than the "stereotypical slashdot linux sysadmin" and this only goes towards scaring me a bit.