For the average fan (speaking about myself here), it's pretty clear that NIL is having a big impact. On the flip side, there's a lot about it that is opaque to us as fans. There are a lot of rumors, innuendo, and speculation, and very little public in terms of hard numbers, for obvious reasons.
Here's a (probably incomplete) list of things we're pretty sure we know:
NIL is at the forefront of high school recruits' minds. It's openly discussed during visits and so forth. However, the extent to which NIL matters as the deciding factor varies a great deal. There are several 5-star recruitments each year that are pretty much purely NIL-driven. However, there are plenty of others who are still operating on the mindset of finding the right fit and the opportunities will come. For your average 3-star type, they're probably not getting promised much at all, just sold on future opportunities if they perform well.
It's assumed that NIL is a bigger deal in the transfer market, at least at the top end where Texas is and should be involved. Guys at smaller programs that show out know that they can improve their situation by jumping into the portal. Small school coaches have started complaining openly about this.
There was an initial gold rush associated with NIL with some pretty ridiculous numbers/contracts/promises involved. It looks very likely that the market is already correcting a little bit into something more sustainable.
Different programs take very different approaches. Some go for big swings to land a few top prospects but probably aren't doing much for the middle and bottom of the roster. Others are a little more cautious about going all-in for any one player. Careful observation reveals that Texas is probably in this second group.
The bag game is still alive and well in certain circumstances. It's probably best to think of bags and legitimate, rule-following NIL as a spectrum, not a binary.
Texas BMDs are not yet fully mobilized in a way that us average fans would hope. The reasons boil down to conservatism and concerns about lack of ROI. A relatively small number of people are carrying the weight for Texas right now and it's not sustainable in the long term. It's very easy for us to sit here on a message board and spend other peoples' money.
Fan collectives seem like a mixed bag. For example, supposedly Ole Miss's is rolling and coincidentally they have been really active in the portal. Many of them are a complete joke right now. Texas One Fund is off to an OK start but has lots and lots of room to grow.
edit: adding a couple more thoughts to this
It's clear that we have gained some advantage via NIL so far, but to me it does not seem that Texas' (and programs like it) advantage has been as immediate and decisive as many assumed. I think the reason is point #3 above. Damn near every school has a few donors that can splash out some cash. The question going forward is who can sustain in the long term? A gap between haves (Texas, ND, USC, etc) and have-nots (Wyoming, Wake Forest, etc) appeared immediately. I expect the gap between those true haves and the sorta-haves (Nebraska, Tennessee, Alabama?????, etc) to begin growing.
My personal opinion, probably not very controversial, is that we are still a long ways from the final form of all this. There are lots of aspects of the college football world in late 2023 that do not look sustainable. I think it's quite possible that the concept of NIL as it is right now will be largely forgotten or irrelevant in 10 years, replaced by a system in which the players get a share of the CFB revenue pie in a much more direct way.