I am unsure why this is. However, I suspect that this is because the Epson K3 ink set is known to have adequate density in the UV which is, of course important for alt process printing.
Maybe. I think a lot has to do, though, with the fact that QTR relies on Epson printers, and QTR is used widely throughout the digital negative domain.
There's of course network externalities playing a role; the more people use the same brand and product types, the more supplies, accessories & knowledge will be available for these products, the higher the value that's experience, resulting in further growth of the ecosystem. I think this is the main explanation of the prevalence of Epson printers in this domain - they had a head start (because Epson inkjet tech was a front-runner some 20 years ago) and that resulted in further acceleration.
There's no reason why any other pigment printer wouldn't work just as well, provided the inks used have sufficient blocking power for the target process. Most contemporary pigment inkjet printers will qualify. The question is if you want/need QTR to print negatives (or regular prints). I think there are several good arguments to use QTR, but it's of course not the only way to get usable output and/or to apply correction curves (which doesn't need to be done in QTR even if QTR is used for the output step).
My use will be 70% digital negatives, 30% color prints.
There's the QTR question above that you need to think about; if you need QTR, you need a (supported) Epson printer.
If you don't
need QTR per se, then the question becomes one of format (you answered; needs to be A2) and I'd argue it will also be about what you expect in terms of color rendering in your 30% color prints. Do you need/want a printer with the extended gamut, that e.g. the ProGRAPH offers (with its blue & red additional color channels)? Does the chroma optimizer channel represent meaningful value to you?
Similar questions if you're looking at Epson's present range of printers, which rely on a different ink set to expand the standard CMYK gamut (Epson seems to rely mostly on CMYK-OGV).
Ultimately, you'd be comparing prints, and if you've ticked the boxes for your alt process negatives, it's a matter of choosing IMO based on the color print performance of the printers you've selected. In that area, I see (semi-)pro photographers/printers move away from Epson and towards Canon in general. Epson is losing terrain very rapidly, which can be explained by the brute force R&D approach Canon has put into its inkjet endeavors.
One option that hasn't been mentioned, is to split the tasks. If you can find an old Epson 3880 for instance, you could dedicate it to alt. process negative tasks. Especially if you can find a set of refillable cartridges to go with it (which is generally not possible for newer models!), you can also enjoy relatively low consumables costs and happily print away. Augment that with a separate printer for color work, in which you'll have the freedom to select whichever printer works best for that purpose. If space & budget allow for it, I'd very seriously consider this option.
Personally, I have an Epson 3880, and if I would be in the market for a new printer, I would lean towards the two-printer solution, keeping the Epson for 'experimental' work (refillable carts, a good market for spare parts and QTR are bonuses here) and putting a (most likely) Canon printer next to it for color work.