Opening Repertoire Help Veresov and D4 defenses

I’m rebuilding my rapid/classical repertoire around openings where I understand why I’m making the moves, especially which central pawn breaks I’m preparing.

WHITE — 1.d4 / Nc3
I used to play a lot of the London and Jobava London.
They worked, but eventually the games became stale. I found myself playing essentially the same setup and plan every game instead of reacting to what my opponent was doing.
I think that started hampering my development because I wasn’t learning enough different pawn structures or really understanding why certain moves were being played.
The final nail in the coffin was that seemingly everyone has a prepared anti-London or anti-Jobava line now.
I’ve moved toward 1.d4 + Nc3, mainly the Richter-Veresov, with transpositions depending on Black:
• ...Nf6 / ...d5 Richter-Veresov
• ...Nc6 e4, Nimzowitsch/Scandinavian structures
• ...e6 e4, French Steinitz
• ...c6 e4, Caro-Kann Advance/Tal
• ...d6 Pirc Austrian
• ...g6 Modern/Pseudo-Austrian
• ...f5 Hopton
• ...b6 English Defence with e4/Nc3
• Early ...c5 or ...e5 usually enter gambits or open positions to force them into my experience instead of theirs
WHITE QUESTION
Why does the Richter-Veresov seem so uncommon today?
Is there something fundamentally unsound or limiting about it, or is it mostly forgotten/out of fashion?
So far I like that a lot of the ideas and structures overlap without forcing me to play exactly the same setup every game.

BLACK
Against 1.e4, I’m very happy with the Caro-Kann.
What I like about it is that it’s structurally sound while still giving Black clear opportunities to undermine the center, especially with ...c5.
I’m looking for something with a similar philosophy against 1.d4 and/or 1.c4.

The Grünfeld is probably my favorite stylistically:
Let White build the center, then attack it immediately.
I like this much better than a Modern where White gets to decide what structure I’m playing. That can result in weird pawn breaks and unfamiliar territory.

The practical problem is actually getting a Grünfeld.
At my level, people frequently delay or completely avoid Nc3, so I end up in Neo-Grünfeld, KID, Modern, or other Indian structures instead. Which is fine, but it creates other problems.
The Grünfeld and related Indian defenses also have a huge number of transpositions, which adds a lot of complexity. Learning “the Grünfeld” starts feeling like learning several connected openings at once.
I’m fine using the KID or Modern as backups, but I don’t want:
...Nf6, ...g6, ...Bg7 and wait
to become my answer to everything.
I’d prefer something that challenges the center earlier and creates more tactical problems.
I played around with the Marshall, but it felt too passive and seemed to give White too much initiative.
I’ve also considered building more heavily around ...c5 openings.
I like the philosophy of immediately attacking the center, and openings like the Sicilian Dragon have always appealed to me.

The problem is that the Sicilian/Dragon family brings an enormous amount of theory that I simply don’t know yet. The amount of book theory seems ridiculous.
Extending the same ...c5 philosophy across the Sicilian, Benoni, and Symmetrical English sounds attractive, but it also feels like signing up for another massive theory project.
I’m becoming more comfortable with Benoni structures as transpositions because at least the strategic idea is very clear: undermine the center and create active counterplay.
I’ve tried the Slav and Semi-Slav too.
I assumed liking the Caro-Kann would mean liking the Slav.

Silly me.

They didn’t feel very similar at all. A lot of the Queen’s Gambit structures felt much more theoretical and positional than what I enjoy.
MAIN QUESTIONS
Is there anything actually wrong with the Richter-Veresov, or is it simply unpopular?
What would you recommend against 1.d4 for someone who likes the Grünfeld/Caro-Kann philosophy: sound, but actively undermining the center early?
Are there good alternatives that retain Grünfeld-like tactical counterplay when White refuses Nc3?
What would you recommend against 1.c4 with the same philosophy?
Is there a sensible way to organize the Grünfeld/Neo-Grünfeld/KID transpositions without effectively learning separate repertoires?
Would a broader ...c5 repertoire make sense, or is the theory burden of the Sicilian/Benoni/English complexes likely to be worse than what I’m already dealing with?
I’m not trying to avoid positional chess or theory.
I just don’t want to repeat the same setup every game or sit back while White finishes theirs. I want to open the center and challenge it with tactical chances.
I’m also not the biggest fan of gambits. If the compensation disappears or you make a mistake while down a pawn or two, you can simply be worse.
Thank you for reading.
TL;DR
Why does nobody play the Richter-Veresov?
I firmly play the Caro-Kann against 1.e4. What should I play against 1.d4 and sometimes 1.c4 that similarly challenges the center, creates tactical chances, and is still sound?

Last question first, the Slav is the closest d4 opening in style to the Caro-Kann.
Why is the Richter-Veresov unpopular? Little things. You're in a queen pawn setup without the option of the break c4 if black plays d5. Or the option of protecting d4 by c3 as in the London. On the other hand, Nc3 develops a piece and is not a bad choice. There's a good book on the opening by Malaysian IM Jimmy Liew.
Once I was preparing for someone and noticed he'd play d4, Nc3 and e4 often transposing to a king pawn opening. You seem to be the same, why not just play 1 e4? Best by test!

At your level, Guava, your time would be better spent studying endgames and spamming Puzzle Streak.

Why do you change the repertoire if you don't play? Your last game was 6 months ago.

Veresov is rather toothless

@RemRus

Seems obvious to me that the OP plays either on another site or from another account.

As for a white Grünfeld: the Catalan comes closest.

"the Catalan comes closest"

True, but as someone who has had some experience playing both openings, I am of the opinion that the extra tempo changes some key ideas, for example the c-pawn sac.

"the extra tempo changes some key ideas"

• You can even arrive at an exact Grünfeld by playing d3 and d4 in 2 moves.
  

  https://lichess.org/cXCz9GzA#7

• Here is another viable move order
  

  https://lichess.org/W5VFUymY#9

@RemRus said ^

Why do you change the repertoire if you don't play? Your last game was 6 months ago.

I play a lot actually just on a different site I know this is silly but I don't like being ranked. I also like to play lower rank players as they are erratic. For higher rank players. It's very satisfying beating a 2,000 ELO player occasionally. I also learn significantly more by getting beat by a strong player. So I go to an App where strong players congregate, and I dont stress about elo. I just play.

I used to like playing the Joebava London and Kings Indian but everyone has lines repaired exactly for that. Also I've learned they're just really boring it's extremely positional and the pawn breaks are tricky. It is extremely common to get completely out of my depth of play within a couple moves.

The problem is that I've played about 300 games in the past week in Blitz (tightening openings) and I've got maybe three games available of the grunfeld. People just aren't going Nc3. So even though I've been studying it, I haven't been able to practice it much at all outside of a computer.

But the opening study has helped tremendously, I learned an alien Gambit refutation that led to one of the best games I've ever played of my life.