Note that the OTS infrastructure works better if there are fewer calendars, not more (to a point at least). The issue is that OTS clients create incomplete proofs by default, to avoid waiting for a confirmation. So to verify a proof, the calendar data needs to be available. More calenders means more data for the whole community to backup, and more chances something gets lost.

If someone, eg, wanted timestamps once a block it would be much better if they just paid me to do timestamps once a block than setting up their own calendar. Which incidentally is exactly what was done for the Guatemalan election project: the company doing it paid me a few hundred dollars to pay for fees of doing almost constant timestamps. 

 Ok let me rephrase it; ideally at some point enough interest (be it commercial, or public, academic or whatever) is there for some entity to run a commercial/'professional' callender where businesses, states, whomever, pay that entity for this service. Which subsequently leaves your efforts as a 'community' backbone.

Or do you see this differently? Sir, are you mad for power to become the sole timestamping overlord of the universe? 

 The nature of time-stamping is that it doesn't make sense to duplicate efforts beyond what is necessary for failure tolerance.

Indeed, I should add a pay-with-lightning scheme to trigger an immediate time-stamp transaction for anyone willing to pay for it.

The calendar server software is of course open source, so it's trivial for others to run their own calenders. But there isn't a good reason to do so. 

 my point is that those failure tollerances includes a callender that you have fuck all to do with is my point :).
Maybe the internet archive could pick up that ball 

 I run two out of four calendars. The other two are run by Bull Bitcoin and Riccardo Casatta. 

 bullbitcoin is so based