Let’s unpack this a little Liquidity pools come with trade-offs: - You can optimize profitability for LPs in the most common cases. Tight concentrated liquidity tends to do this well and tends to be most profitable for LPs outside of external incentives. - Or you can optimize for the liquidity that the asset issuer wants to support. This is worse for normal LPs though, and so usually only makes sense if the asset issuer is sponsoring it with incentives. Curve is one option to do the latter. But neither the only nor the most efficient. You can also make concentrated liquidity positions that cover whatever range the asset issuer wants to sponsor. And in almost all cases, the asset issuer doesn’t need liquidity at *all* prices but can get better efficiency by at least trivially cutting off extreme prices that aren’t relevant. For example cutting off prices much above 1:1 for a stablecoin or LST that is mintable atomically but providing generous downwards liquidity to cover a depeg. Asymmetric liquidity pools like Gyroscope’s E-CLPs can be more efficient for asset issuers in this regard than Curve pools while still delivering the downwards liquidity that is needed. At the same time, it’s worth bearing in mind why these positions rely on an asset issuer to sponsor them: they’re inherently less profitable most of the time than tight concentrated liquidity positions, and so incentives usually have to cover the gap. It can be useful to market stability to have such liquidity though, which is why asset issuers choose to cover these incentives.