How many $100M deep-tech companies never get built because our startup ecosystem is broken? I will not promote.

I think we're missing an enormous source of economic growth. Not because we lack inventions, but because turning them into companies is unnecessarily difficult. Imagine someone develops a breakthrough material, manufacturing process, or computational method. With the right support, it could become a $100M company. So why is the path from invention to successful business still so broken? I see three fundamental problems. 1. Academic prestige gets confused with innovative ability. Professors can be excellent researchers without being exceptional inventors. Yet academic credentials are easier for investors to evaluate than the actual potential of an unconventional invention. 2. The invention-to-company pipeline barely exists. Technical validation, engineering, IP, funding, and commercialization must often be assembled almost from scratch. We have universities, accelerators, and VCs, but no sufficiently accessible, repeatable machinery connecting them. 3. The ecosystem is built around massive outcomes. VCs understandably seek outsized returns. But plenty of valuable deep-tech businesses could potentially reach $100M valuations without ever becoming unicorns. Many don't fit existing funding and development models. And here's the biggest problem: companies that never get founded don't appear in failure statistics. We never count their missing technologies, productivity gains, or economic growth. Software has developed infrastructure that makes starting a company dramatically easier. Why haven't we created something comparable for deep tech? What if we're missing thousands of potential $100M companies simply because we've never built an efficient way to create them? Is the real bottleneck a shortage of valuable inventions, or a broken system for turning them into businesses?