Yours is a good idea and is widely used right now as the standard reaction to droop. As physicists we are interested in the droop problem because it is more fu

Yours is a good idea and is widely used right now as the standard reaction to droop. As physicists we are interested in the droop problem because it is more fundamental to the structure and intrinsic nature of semiconductors and solids in general. It is along the same lines of: if we have type-2 superconductors that work at liquid nitrogen, why do we keep looking for SCs that work at room temperature, or if we have type-1 superconductors, why do we need type-2? From a purely pragmatic point of view we know that more LEDs leads to the use of more money, more time, and more materials. A more efficient LED is a wise idea. I believe you may be missing a link here, that droop, or its physical cause, IS the entire problem that causes strains on price and size constraints. This is the reason to single it out.