Renting reach versus building an asset
Clipping and faceless YouTube share a surface similarity — no face, editing-driven — but the underlying model is different. A clipper distributes clips and is paid for their performance; a faceless channel builds a subscriber base and an archive it owns and monetises over time.
The channel is the slower path. Ad monetisation has an eligibility threshold you must reach before you earn anything, and getting there can take months of uploads that pay nothing. But once it works, you own the audience and the back catalogue.
Where faceless YouTube genuinely wins
If you want to build something durable — an audience and a library that can be monetised through ads, sponsors, and your own products, and that could be sold — a faceless channel has the higher ceiling and creates a real asset. Clipping produces income, not equity.
The trade is upfront risk of time: the channel can earn nothing for a long stretch. Clipping's earnings depend on the views your clips receive, but you are not waiting to cross a monetisation gate before anything arrives.