There is what I want to do and what Wyze can do. Two VERY different things! 
Yes, I would like all the sensors, bulbs, plugs and Lock exposed through Matter at its launch time. But for the moment, this is a lot of work that needs to be done. Making the devices themselves compliant is not excessively difficult but we have to build up the expertise and divert some of the resources that are currently working on the engineering of the current products to work on that.
Again, it would be too long to talk about all the work that needs to be done. But there are some obvious questions like: should we keep both wyze IoT implementation and add Matter? That would most likely be possible because of the hardware limitation. So should we remove Wyze IoT and replace it with Matter? Sounds like a good idea but then how do we integrate the device in the Wyze ecosystem… Well, it means that we have to have some other means of communication with the cloud and also have a way of representing generic devices in the Cloud…
If we keep pulling on that thread, we end up with a massive amount of work that has to be achieved before we can even put a Matter device on the market.
The TL;DR is that right now, we are actively looking at Matter. I’m the POC for Matter for Wyze. I’m running several (raspPi) prototypes to understand the maturity and the complexity and develop the expertise around Matter. I’ve briefed the upper management on the business challenges and technical opportunities around Matter. I’ve also started to develop a plan for the adoption of Matter but we have not committed the development time for the moment on Matter because we have a serious backlog of features for the current products for the coming months and to support the launch of the products that have already been committed.