Undoubtedly point-clouds can be beaten, and adding a single wide-FOV render is an efficient way to fill space "offscreen." I'm just cautious about explaining this because it invites the most baffling rejections. At one point I tried explaining the separation of figuring out where stuff is, versus showing that location to you, using beads floating in a fluid simulation. Tracking the liquid and how things move within it is obviously full of computer-melting complexity. Rendering a dot, isn't. And this brain case acted like I'd described simulating the entire ocean for free. As if the goal was plucking all future positions out of thin air, and not, y'know, remembering where it is, now.

The lowest-bullshit way is probably frustum slicing. Picture the camera surrounded by transparent spheres. Anything between two layers gets rendered onto the further one. This is more-or-less how "deep view video" works. (Worked?) Depth information can be used per-layer to create lumpen meshes or do parallax mapping. Whichever is cheaper at obscene framerates. Rendering with alpha is dirt cheap because it's all sorted.

Point clouds (or even straight-up original geometry) might be better at nose-length distances. Separating moving parts is almost mandatory for anything attached to your hands. Using a wide-angle point render instead of doing a cube map is one of several hacks available since Fisheye Quake, and a great approach if you expect to replace things before the user can turn around.

But I do have to push back on active fake focus. Lightfields are better. Especially if we're distilling the scene to be renderable in a hot millisecond, there's no reason to motorize the optics and try guessing where your pupils are headed. Passive systems can provide genuine focal depth.

That last paper is from ten years ago.