Facebook is a rather extraordinarily bad example to hold up. They lost money for a short amount of time for a VC backed company - about 4 1/2 years. Asana by contrast is 13 years into losing money.
Here is Facebook's early financial history (2004, 2005, 2006 all showed losses):
2007 | $153m sales | -$138m net income
2008 | $272m sales | -$56m net income
2009 | $777m sales | $229m net income
2010 | $1.97b sales | $606m net income
2011 | $3.71b sales | $1b net income
By the time Facebook was 13 years old it was running at ~$16 billion profit.
This does show you the fallacy in your line of thinking, right? Twitter was on that list, and now it's not. In 5 years, maybe none of the companies in your list will be in it; sure you will easily find "replacements" that are just as popular/well known, but the thing is that that's exactly the model: "grow aggressively, capture the market, become profitable once you're market leader". It doesn't always work, but it's hard to dispute that it sometimes works, and when it does, it yields tremendous profits. It's not a bug, it's a feature :)
But 53M is not much for a decade of business at that scale. For the size of some of these VC investments they could just put it into the market and get similar returns, I'd think?
Twitter hasn't captured the market, but has become only slightly profitable compared to its industry peers. Meanwhile Doordash or Deliveroo or Uber could capture entire markets, but that would rapidly make them prone to regulation or outright bans.
And Facebook wasn't profitable once, too.