I guess you're getting downvoted because people didn't realize you're also the tweet author.
So you can confirm that you did lose ad revenue because of the claim and really are just stuck until somebody steps in and reverses it? Or is it as described in the YT terms linked in another comment?
I don't monetize my videos to begin with, so I wouldn't be making any money anyway. My creator revenue (for my work on the Asahi Linux project) comes entirely from Patreon and GitHub Sponsors, so I can afford to laugh this off, as it doesn't affect my bottom line. However, not everyone is lucky enough to be in this position.
I've heard countless horror stories of creators ending up in Content ID hell and losing huge amounts of revenue. Whatever systems YouTube has to try to make this work, they obviously don't, not in practice, and real people are being hurt by copyright trolls like this one.
One thing I have no recourse for is that there are now incredibly intrusive pre-roll ads running on the video and annoying my viewers, where there shouldn't be any. No amount of escrow is going to make up for that problem.
If you had a second account that claimed a copyright on the content in your first account, can a copyright troll still claim copyright on the content in your first account, or would that prevent the second copyright claim from pushing ads onto your content?
It doesn't work directly through YouTube; only big companies get to do that.
What you can do is release your content as music (e.g. your channel intro music or similar) through a music distributor that offers Content ID services, and claim it on yourself. Then it becomes a revenue share, so instead of stealing 100% of your revenue, a fraudulent claim only takes 50%. This is, no joke, legitimately a thing people have done.
What's your basis for this "nope"? Google's own stated policy is that they hold all monetization revenue during dispute, and only release it to the winner of the dispute. Is that not true?
I see in a sibling comment/reply that you say you weren't monetizing your videos, and that now there are pre-roll ads on them that you don't want, and there's no way to undo that fact right now. I agree those are bad things, but those issues are separate from the one to which you are replying, which is about who gets the monetization revenue that accrues during a dispute.