Right. What I'm saying is that the benefit that VRR provides falls off as monitor refresh rate increases. From your link:

If a game on console doesn't deliver new frame on time, two things can happen.

Console can wait for a new TV frame, delaying display time about 16.7 ms (VSYNC). Which leads to an effect called stuttering and uneven frame pacing...

If you have a 60 Hz display, the maximum amount of time that software can wait until a rendered frame goes to a static refresh rate screen is 1/60th of a second.

But if you have a 240 Hz display, the maximum amount of time that software can wait until a rendered frame is sent to a static refresh rate screen is 1/240th of a second.

OLED monitors have no meaningful framerate physical constraints from the LED elements on refresh rate; that traditionally comes from the LCD elements (well, I mean, you could have higher rates, but the LCD elements can only respond so quickly). If the controller and the display protocol can handle it, an OLED monitor can basically display at whatever rate you want. So OLED monitors out there tend to support pretty good refresh rates.

Looking at Amazon, my first page of OLED monitor results has all capable of 240Hz or 480Hz, except for one at 140 Hz.

That doesn't mean that there is zero latency, but it's getting pretty small.

Doesn't mean that there isn't value to VRR, just that it declines as the refresh rate rises.

Reason I bring it up is because I'd been looking at OLED monitors recently myself, and the VRR brightness issues with current OLED display controllers was one of the main concerns that I had (well, that and burn-in potential) and I'd decided that if I were going to get an OLED monitor before the display controller situation changes WRT VRR, I'd just run at a high static refresh rate.