Am I wasting money on the theory of Bi-amping?

I have learned that Wilson and others who do not offer biampable speakers it's because they don't trust the world to do it properly. So they don't want you to screw up their speakers.

I am a big proponent of doing tube anp mono to the upper range drivers and solid state to the bass for each side.  
 

wilson of all companies should be allowing this capability. You can get it if you order it special.  Many upscale restaurants charge extra if you want your sandwich cut into four pieces. Kind of like Biamping a meal. 

Why doesn’t Wilson allow for biamping of their speakers? Seems really odd with all those drivers in use. Even with all their glorious crossover designs, it would seem to make sense to allow use of a tube amplifier for the upper drivers and solid state for bass drivers. Anyone who buys these speakers is probably very versatile with all of biamp benefits yet Wilson doesn't do it. Same question for a lot of other upper end speakers that choose not be biampable.

Seems biamping in an ideal way would be using a tube amplifier for upper drivers, and solid state for bass. I believe it's widely accepted that tube amps for bass drivers presents lots of less than ideal issues.

To me using solid state across all drivers when biamping will have benefits but if you go to this trouble you might as well go all the way with tubes.

• How come they don't design biamping amps that are both tubes for top drivers and solid state for bass drivers?

Maybe I begin to do this and make a lot of money