WeWork's valuation plunges--is there a systematic flaw in valuation?

#Are WeWork and similar start-ups caught in inescapable loss traps?

Potential of generating profitable revenue plays an important role in valuing tech start-ups.

Invariably, technology innovation emerges in primitive form, generating loss making revenue. But the underlying technology core should be amenable to support the advancement of the product in improving the quality and reducing the cost, consequentially turning the loss into profit.

Historically, startup successes in Silicon Valley have been underpinned by the technology potential--making the product better and cheaper concurrently. Eventually, the product grows as a better substitute to cause disruption to incumbents and create new market--consequentially generating large profitable revenue.

Unlike Tesla, where is technology potential in making the outputs of Uber or WeWork increasingly better as well as cheaper--consequentially causing disruption to incumbent firms/industries and creating new ones?

Recently, WeWork lost $1.9 billion in generating $1.8 billion revenue. Similarly, Uber lost $5 billion in a single quarter. For startup valuation, this loss may not be a big deal. But how can these startups turn the loss into profit by leveraging underlying technology progression is an issue. Are these start-ups caught in inescapable loss traps?

Like them, Tesla is also in loss. But the progression of underlying battery technology has the potential to turn business of EVs into profit.

Is it time to go back to basics of dynamics of technology innovation in making valuation of such startups? Or, is there a new lesson to learn from these startups to update the basics?