I actually crossed chess.com 2000 rapid rating with 1. e4 e5 as my repertoire for black. Yeah, it did have a huge variety of openings I had to be prepared for, but I knew how to handle them all in a way I was fairly comfortable with. At that time, I had previously experimented with the French Defense (for almost a year) and didn't like the middlegame structures that much for black (namely the space disadvantage I often got) and I didn't really want to play the Sicilian Defense because that was theoretical in a way I didn't like - plus a friend of mine used that opening, so from analyzing with them, I recognized that this opening wasn't really my playstyle.
Eventually, I switched from 1. e4 e5 to the Caro-Kann Defense (1. e4 c6) and that is what I play now, but the symmetry of 1. e4 e5 didn't bother me. I primarily switched because I thought the Caro-Kann might better fit my playstyle and also because with 1. e4 e5 openings, white still has a lot of control in how they steer the direction of the opening - with the Caro-Kann, at least I try to steer the game into my own territory.
Why did I play 1. e4 e5 for years then? Well, part of it is because I knew it was a lot to learn, but I was determined to just know theory more than my opponents and so I figured I'd get an advantage that way. There was also a sense of assertiveness in "I can play 1...e5 and I dare you to try and break it!"
Just why? White has TOO MANY gambits, tricks and traps, you can't be ready to everything. What do you even get in compensation for that?