Hey thanks for reading! Check us out at rebil.co for a bit more information on how we plan to instill value in digital art. We are just getting started, but keep watching and I think you'll like what you see!
The blog page doesn't make this obvious. Clicking around helps, but maybe not quite enough.
Not sure where the digital art element comes in. To most people that means still image fine art or maybe animation. (Or possibly all those brightly coloured half-naked pixie and fantasy character artworks that are all over Deviant Art, depending.)
The model might work, but taking on YouTube and Vimeo is brave and ambitious, especially considering they're moving to a subscription model themselves. (Never mind Netflix...)
One thing that I really hope is more refined than the rough description on the site is the "revenue per minute watched" model for paying creators. YouTube has switched to this model at some point (previously it counted views) and this hurts harder-to-produce content tremendously (like film or animation) while encouraging cheap-to-produce content (like slow-paced tutorials or video blogs.)
Obviously just counting views has its issues (encourages click baiting), but this can be countered by looking at bounce-backs or what-not, and mainly YouTube did what it did because its ad business requires viewers to spend time on the site. With paying customers, hopefully it's possible to do better.
(The drive for "minutes of content" reminds of the switch from cinema to TV - quality certainly took a hit because of the new demand for endless quantities...)
Here's some more contextual information on it: http://modernism.research.yale.edu/wiki/index.php/The_Work_o...
(Although Benjamin might object to the notion that art has value, in the sense of metaphorical value implying financial value and vice versa.)