If I remember correctly, WebP was single-handedly forced into adoption by Chrome, while offering only marginal improvements over existing formats. Mozilla even worked on an improved JPEG encoder, MozJPEG, to show it could compete with WebP very well. Then came HEIF and AVIF, which, like WebP, were just repurposed video codecs.

JPEG XL is the first image format in a long while that's been actually designed for images and brings a substantial improvement to quality while also covering a wide range of uses and preserving features that video codecs don't have. It supports progressive decoding, seamless very large image sizes, potentially large amount of channels, is reasonably resilient against generation loss, and more. The fact that it has no major drawbacks alone gives it much more merit than WebP has ever had. Lossless recompression is in addition to all of that.

The difference is that this time around, Google has single-handedly held back the adoption of JPEG XL, while a number of other parties have expressed interest.

Having a PNG go from 164.5K to 127.1K as lossless WEBP is not what I'd call "marginal". An improvement of over 20% is huge for lossless compression.

Going from lossless WEBP to lossless JXL is marginal though, and is not worth the big decode performance loss.