There is a solution, Crunchy deep freezers @QuipTalk

Answer: The issue of locking liquidity in deep freezers, such as Crunchy, has been a topic of discussion in the $UP Discord. The general consensus is that it can be detrimental to a project's long term success as it can limit the amount of liquidity available and make it difficult to move the asset. This is especially true in smaller ecosystems like Tezos. It is important to consider the potential growth of a project when deciding whether to lock liquidity in deep freezers. If the project has a high potential for growth, locking a large percentage of the supply in deep freezers could reduce the liquidity available and make it difficult to move the asset. However, if the growth potential is limited, locking liquidity in deep freezers could be beneficial as it would provide stability and reduce the volatility of the asset. Ultimately, the decision to lock liquidity in deep freezers should be based on the potential growth of the project and the amount of liquidity available.

ahhhhhh yes

No they suck. We had a long discussion in #🐳-discussion on the $UP discord already (feel free to join the discussion btw). Locking liquidity can kill a project very early since the pool size and the +/-2% depth grows with the mcap of the project. So if you have a project that has the potential to grow a lot and you eg. lock 10% if supply in liquidity pools you can end up having a pool that’s large af and your asset is “unmovable” (especially in small ecosystems like Tezos).