I ask because I am obvious blind to other cases - that's what I'm curious about! I generally find the &s to be a net help even without mem safety ... They make it easier to reason about structure, and when things mutate.
This separation is also why it is basically impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons between languages.
Messy things I've hit (from ~5KLoC of Rust; I'm a Rust beginner, I primarily do C) are: cyclical references; a large structure that needs efficient single-threaded mutation while referenced from multiple places (i.e. must use some form of cell) at first, but needs to be sharable multithreaded after all the mutating is done; self-referential structures are roughly impossible to move around (namely, an object holding &-s to objects allocated by a bump allocator, movable around as a pair, but that's not a thing (without libraries that I couldn't figure out at least)); and refactoring mutability/lifetimes is also rather messy.
The aliasing rules in Rust are also pretty strict. There are plenty of single-threaded programs where I want to be able to occasionally read a piece of information through an immutable reference, but that information can be modified by a different piece of code. This usually indicates a design issue in your program but sometimes you just want to throw together some code to solve an immediate problem. The extra friction from the borrow checker makes it less attractive to use Rust for these kinds of programs.
You could do that using Cell or RefCell. I agree that it makes it more cumbersome.
The refusal to accept code that the developer knows is correct, simply because it does not fit how the borrow checker wants to see it implemented. That kind of heavy-handed and opinionated supervision is overhead to productivity. (In recent times, others have taken to saying that Rust is less "fun.")
When the purpose of writing code is to solve a problem and not engage in some pedantic or academic exercise, there are much better tools for the job. There are also times when memory safety is not a paramount concern. That makes the overhead of Rust not only unnecessary but also unwelcome.
How do you know it is correct? Did you prove it with pre-condition, invariants and post-condition? Or did you assume based on prior experience.
This means it rejects, by definition alone, bug-free code because that bug free code uses a pattern that is not acceptable.
IOW, while Rust rejects code with bugs, it also rejects code without bugs.
It's part of the deal when choosing Rust, and people who choose Rust know this upfront and are okay with it.
This is similar to creating a broadly-used data structure and realizing that some field has to be optional. Option<T> will require you to change everything touching it, and virally spread through all the code that wanted to use that field unconditionally. However, that's not the fault of the Option syntax, it's the fault of semantics of optionality. In languages that don't make this "miserable" at compile time, this problem manifests with a whack-a-mole of NullPointerExceptions at run time.
With experience, I don't get this "oh no, now there's a lifetime popping up everywhere" surprise in Rust any more. Whether something is going to be a temporary view or permanent storage can be known ahead of time, and if it can be both, it can be designed with Cow-like types.
I also got a sense for when using a temporary loan is a premature optimization. All data has to be stored somewhere (you can't have a reference to data that hasn't been stored). Designs that try to be ultra-efficient by allowing only temporary references often force data to be stored in a temporary location first, and then borrowed, which doesn't avoid any allocations, only adds dependencies on external storage. Instead, the design can support moving or collecting data into owned (non-temporary) storage directly. It can then keep it for an arbirary lifetime without lifetime annotations, and hand out temporary references to it whenever needed. The run-time cost can be the same, but the semantics are much easier to work with.
