I would challenge the notion that trackers offer the same set of features as regular DAWs
But at that point I would say that those are no longer trackers, but DAWs with a weird vertical layout.
It kinda sounds like you are confused with what DAWs are supposed to be. DAWs are for audio work, period. They're not just sequencers, not just MIDI editors, etc. They have to serve multiple purposes. A non-musician may use a DAW for editing sound effects for games, or editing audiobooks, or they might be purely a mastering engineer. Are trackers DAWs? At what point does a sequencer become a DAW? Asking the real philosophical questions here

Renoise calls itself a DAW, but I wouldn't call it one, because by design it's not as versatile as Pro Tools, Cubase, Reaper or Ardour. It's important to understand their capabilities. ProTools and Cubase are optimized for working with audio stems/clips. Ableton is optimized for live performances, FL Studio is optimized for sequencing/automations. Renoise is optimized for precise editing and sample work, but not ideal for mastering or downmix-heavy work.
DAW sequencing does allows for very fine granularity, but music is typically highly structured and based around specific note lengths anyway. Even music where the tempo is not constant can be done by controlling the speed primarily, not the density of notes. Fine granularity is mostly good for capturing a performance at a constant speed, or to facilitate
humanization, random errors in timing that make the note placements seem less perfect. And you do run into inelegance in trackers, but clever use of effects such as speed and note delay etc can mitigate it. Some tracker music changse tempo in specific parts of patterns JUST to increase granularity and make room for extra notes, while ultimately keeping the overall tempo in tact. It's confusing but magical and ingenious at the same time.
Of course, not all trackers have the same limitations. Some trackers allow you to add additional command columns as needed. Some trackers allow for polyphonic 'note release tails' per channel, some trackers allow polyphonic chords instead of arpeggios. OpenMPT doesn't have any of this. Basically there are a lot of innovations that can be applied to the typical tracker workflow that we aren't seeing because it's a niche area.
In a DAW there is generally no limit of commands one can apply to a note.
Yes in the sense of being able to use unlimited automation tracks, but there isn't any standard list of 'note commands' in MIDI aside from velocity, panning, pitch etc. And if you're using a VST plugin (and I imagine other plugin specs too), you are at the mercy of whatever controls that plugin exposes. A lot of tracker commands have no equivalent in most plugins. The DAW typically gives most control to its native built-in instruments.
There are also many UI complications that, on the one hand, allow to do some things in a tracker easier, but for the most part make very basic things harder. Looking at what is basically a spreadsheet is geeky and fun and I personally love it, but I also recognize that a piano roll allows me to understand what's going on much faster and makes it trivial to move notes around.
This is a legitimate concern, the more powerful and involved a tracker is, the harder it is to learn. Trackers are really optimized for efficiency and not convenience. For example, the actual sequence data for iconic SMB overworld tune is a mere 339 bytes, and that's for almost 2 minutes of music. Some trackers adopt the mindset of extreme efficiency - which is why older trackers only had 15 or 31 instruments, or why you type in raw hex (00-FF or 0-255) instead of 64-bit decimal points (0.69793734).
Personally, I believe a tracker interface can be married with a piano roll, and certain adjustments in the piano roll can be interpreted as certain effect commands. The software Buzz tried this, but kept the piano roll vertical for some reason.
The fact that modern trackers treat a track as a mixer track is kind of problematic
How many trackers can you call modern? I wouldn't call OpenMPT modern, as it's firmly based on Impulse Tracker, which is circa 1995 technology. Yes it has some forward-thinking extensions but nothing truly radical. Renoise does have a dedicated mixer and is flexible in how tracks are routed. And that's the only one I can think of.
So, trackers are probably not going to go away completely, just like Amiga games are not going away completely. There are always geeks out there or people to whom the tracker interface simply speaks. But in terms of actual versatility, I think trackers are definitely very limited tools. Super fun - and I love them - but I don't see them being more than a very niche geeky thing.
Trackers are tightly related to 'chiptune' music. Originally music editing was done in a text editor in hex and had to be pretty compact. For example, the 1.5 minute Overworld theme in SMB for NES is a just 339 bytes. Amiga music wasn't as tiny, but still needed to be quite small. Trackers came about as a natural way to quickly preview music as you write it. Horizontal editing still existed back then, Aegis Sonix used musical notation, and Cubase on Atari ST had a piano roll. But now Renoise and OpenMPT and even the original FT2/IT trackers allow for more serious/modern sounding music. So it was an obvious transition. Many composers have outright abandoned trackers for fully fleshed out DAWs like Cubase where they have no limitations.
But I feel like every new innovation 'moves the goal post further' so to speak. A game composer moving from the NES to SNES would feel quite liberated to be able to use 'realistic instruments' despite the low memory available. Even the Megadrive's FM synth would've seemed exciting if all you ever knew was a pulse and triangle wave. Now we have a limitless supply of VST synths, so being limited to just one would feel oppressive, despite the fact that any synth like Surge today, is incredibly more capable than older systems.
As for me, I started with a DAW, and prefer to go backwards; I basically yearn for a tailor made tracker with only the features I'd ever use. I like trying new obscure trackers and synths because they often bring something new to the table, and help me brainstorm what essential features would be good for a future tracker. I find personal satisfaction with working with weird hardware/software, or making my own custom tools. The technicality of trackers allow for expression beyond that of just music. Many creative tracker users have used them in unexpected ways, animating things, or going in reverse in patterns, navigating patterns in odd and creative ways. So it can facilitate what could be characterized as Music Engineering, where the final song is merely the cherry on top to the intricate crafting of the song and instruments, which can be only be experienced fully by studying the source file directly.
Generally speaking, trackers don't have to be limited in the ways you describe - there's just very little pressure to explore solutions and innovations.
Happy Holidays!