If all of that will not be enabled, what is the point of speed, security, simplicity and so on...
mozerd provided nothing, as usual.
You continue to display a complete lack of sense and logic.
This a case of
a network protocol looking for a solution, based on
buzzwords. So if we remove the buzzwords... What's missing here is the problem with the
existing solutions?
Mikrotik steers you to L2TP and SSTP (& ironically PPTP) when you check "VPN" in QuickSet – I'd take that as MT's recommended VPN servers. While Mikrotik's Wireguard docs has example for "site-to-site", this forum is replete with examples of Wireguard being "useful". Similarly WG isn't as useful if you need to bridge L2, why RouterOS has many protocols to solve various needs (L2TP, ZeroTier, MPLS, etc).
The simple fact is Wireguard, by design, does not concern itself with users, only keys. How someone/something want to manage the key is NOT WG's concern/design. That's not a defect in Wireguard, it's a strength – it allow a variety of architectures to uses a secure efficient L3 tunnels in variety of ways, VPN client/server being one possibility. @mozard has suggested a few commercial services that make WG at least more "user friendly", and that's the idea behind the separation of tunnel+key from "use cases": you can use WG as protocol anywhere, but without some layer ON TOP of WG, a "VPN client user" is dealing with keys to setup a tunnel. That may or may not work for some cases.