I very much agree with you. There continues to be a laissez-faire attitude regarding IPv6 deployment across enterprises and other industries. There are, unfortunately, many options to continue stretching IPv4 which delays IPv6 even further and many organizations don't see a value or business-driver for IPv6 yet.
That said, in the US, there has been a continued trend of service providers beginning deployment to CPE in recent years taking on dual-stack, IPv4 CGNAT + IPv6 PD. I suspect it's partially due to ARIN allocation exhaustion, though technically there's quite a bit of space on the second-hand market and RIPE also still has allocations available. Major kudos to US wireless carriers for following in the footsteps of other international carriers who have deployed IPv6 as their primary network stack for mobile devices.
Back on the topic at hand though, I too am concerned about the "wild wild west" address assignments in IPv6. Only time will tell if it has an impact on IPv6 availability. For now, we can manage our own networks and follow best practices to our desire, with some level of common sense and personal preference to balance.
For IPv6 /126 vs /127 specifically, I thought you might enjoy RFC 6164 which recommends /127s and is the most current standard I can find. Just like IPv4, it'll be up to the operator to take on some level of preference when deploying IPv6.
Happy IPv6 deployments. Here's to the future of the Internet!