The one issue is that everyone on the beta says their phone is slower now. Which is probably not because of the liquid glass effect, since I think that should be doable with just a couple of texture lookups. (One of those funny things about computer graphics is that often the most visually impressive effects are the simplest computationally - compare this to a "proper" gaussian blur, which is quite expensive.)
Saying this won't tax the battery is ridiculous. And if it was for something "impressive" I might see the ROI.
But it's a basic UI control. A button, a slider. And it's not impressive, it's distracting. The whole idea of glass in UI is to make a control less apparent. To make it fit with the content, blend in, be less distracting. But when light rapidly bends and twists behind in the refraction, the effect (in motion) is more like "STOP LOOKING AT YOUR CONTENT, LOOK AT ME".
This is... I don't know what the exact opposite of good design is. It's not "bad". Bad is not knowing what you're doing. This looks intentionally done to be as terrible as it can be, with laser-sharp malice.
I remember when Microsoft was ensuring us all Vista won't tax the performance of the computer, it's all hyper-optimized, don't worry about it. And theirs was a much simpler glass effect. What happened then? Windows 7 simplified the effect for performance reasons, and Windows 8 and 10 completely removed it, because it was too heavy...
Use common sense. Liquid Glass is more difficult to compute due to the refraction and "global illumination" effects, and it's running on tiny power starved devices. Even a DAMN WATCH. How is that supposed to magically not matter?
Developer betas often have debug code enabled and optimizations usually arrive last.
Since GUIs became (flat) UX, everything has gotten worse.
Get off my lawn.