I've been playing with Thunderbolt networking over the past week with mixed results. I can get 16Gbps between a couple of Macs. Between a Mac and a PC running Windows 10 I get similar speeds in one direction, but less than 1Gbps in the other direction.
In terms of scaling this to multiple hosts as the author does, I've read that it is possible to daisy chain, or even use a hub, but it doesn't strike me as the most reliable way to build a network. For an ad hoc connection, though (like null modem cables of yore), it's a great option.
I think reliability is a great metric to evaluate this on. I don't have a lot of experience with USB4/Thunderbolt networking, but as far as ring network principals go, when you have a network with only 3 nodes, a ring topology is also a fully connected topology. This means that connectivity between nodes should never fail due to the failure of a node. That screams reliable to me.
As far as points of failure, there's no additional hub/switch in between the devices, so you have a Thunderbolt controller on each device, two cables, and two ports. If a cable goes bad, so long as there isn't a silent/awkward failure mode, all three nodes can still talk to eachother, at degraded speed. If a switch goes bad, the whole network is down, unless you start talking about redundant switch topologies.
To your point though, there does seem to be plenty of shenanigans with performance, especially between devices with different Thunderbolt controllers, that may make this less ideal. But IMO, that's more of a question of do you want to with a more battle tested topology, or are you okay with a less battle tested, but still highly performant and "simple" (we won't go into how bonkers the USB/Thunderbolt spec is) topology?
In terms of scaling this to multiple hosts as the author does, I've read that it is possible to daisy chain, or even use a hub, but it doesn't strike me as the most reliable way to build a network. For an ad hoc connection, though (like null modem cables of yore), it's a great option.