Wow, that's a shiny hangar floor!
As a person who flies and certifies aircraft, I would be concerned about a wing or tail low landing causing propeller damage. In any case, I expect that a computer in the plane would have to reduce thrust on a wingtip motor, in the case of a loss of thrust on the other side for any reason. They could be cross shafted like a tilt rotor, but that gets complex and heavy. The V tail would be challenged providing enough yaw control to overcome thrust asymmetry for the wing motors.
And, I imagine a really inconvenient hump in the cockpit floor where the nosewheel has to be when it is retracted.
I was keenly interested in the innovation of the Learfan, back in the day. But after understanding the many interrelated design innovations and challenges, it became apparent that it is less than ideal to innovate a very different airframe design, a different powerplant, and different propeller arrangements all on one airplane at one time. I'm very much in favour of electric aircraft development, and participated in a design study, but that was for re [motoring] a 172. Everything about the airframe and propeller (to have been MTV electric) was proven, and very accepted, it was only the changed powerplant which was open for investigation and development.
I continue to watch with interest, though with the eye of an aircraft certifier.....