I think this is an interesting and definitely laudable project, but I think the PeerTube-exclusivity clause is a large mistep. I understand the motivations, but

I think this is an interesting and definitely laudable project, but I think the PeerTube-exclusivity clause is a large mistep. I understand the motivations, but I think it's flawed for two reasons: 1, it increases the risk for creators. While an equipment grant is extremely useful, the biggest investment (having made a couple educational videos myself) is time. Having to then limit yourself to a platform with very low user adoption is a huge risk, and harmful to creator morale if the videos struggle for an audience due to the platform. 2, and this ties into the first problem, it's not good for marketing. If you look at how another Youtube competitor, Nebula, is handling this, they have creators cross-post most of their content to Youtube. Creators then advertise Nebula in their sponsorship timeslot, extolling its virtues for creator sustainability etc -- which PeerTube would greatly benefit from as many people aren't aware of the benefit of a distributed system, or what that even means. Additionally, they upload some sort of exclusive -- either longer videos with content that wouldn't fit on YT (LegalEagle is a good example of a channel that does this), or special long-form projects (Wendover Productions uses this model). Either way, this lets Nebula hijack Youtube's recommendation algorithm and built in audience as essentially free advertising, as the content being uploaded to YT is being posted to Nebula anyways. Obviously many people just watch on YT and ignore Nebula as it requires a subscription, but PeerTube doesn't and Nebula is succeeding despite that -- anecdotally, me and my fiance bought a subscription because of this strategy. With that out of the way, I do love this idea and hope it gets traction regardless!