Sure, you can bridge in either direction (using e.g. this [1] excellent Wireguard-to-SOCKS adapter), but in my view, if you have bytestream semantics, you're often better off using a bytestream-oriented proxying protocol (like SOCKS, SSH or HTTP) and vice versa.

These bridges/adapters do have their applications though – I have a home router that supports Wireguard natively, but not any of the higher-level protocols; this lets me use my per-tab approach with it.

[1] https://github.com/pufferffish/wireproxy

I don't really get the value proposition of wireproxy. Especially since it seems not to be complete yet.

It is trivial to run a socks proxy on one of the peers and have your browser point to that. Both chrome and firefox can do this on demand and for the sites you select.

There is no peer capable of running a SOCKS proxy in my scenario. My home router only supports Wireguard.

SOCKS is also usually not encrypted.

I have a docker based proxy running on a vm. (I've tried a bunch of them. They all work fine. None of them are hugely better at the bandwidth levels available to me - around 50-70mbps) The proxy is only listening on the wireguard IP. I have my clients connect to that wireguard peer and use the wireguard IP as the proxy. You can't install a proxy on the remote side? It should be possible seeing that you have to install something anyway. I am not sure about not needing root but it should not be a requirement for a proxy server since all it does is make http requests on your behalf.