There is only one ante Nicene writer that places John clearly in the reign of Domitian and that is Victorinus. And he placed it early in his reign, not late as in Eusebius.
I must apologize for saying that there were four ante-Nicene writers who said this. Actually only three of the four were ante-Nicene.
The first was Irenaeus. The second was Victorinus, and the third was the unknown writer of the Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John and the fourth truly ancient source was Jerome.
All of these either stated that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domatian, or stated that John's exile to Patmos was at that time. And every one of them gave details that none of the others gave. That proves, beyond the possibility of debate, that every one of them was relying on a source other than any of the other three.
Other writers who said the same things include the pseudo-Hyppolytus you spoke of, plus Sulpitius Severus.
The only source that is unquestionably previous to the sixth century and clearly said the Revelation was written before the reign of Domatian was the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis, which was written in the late fourth century.
It is unreasonable to argue that this is even close to a reliable witness, for Epiphanius has John having prophesied not only during the time of Claudius, but even earlier, and has him returning from Patmos "under Claudius Caesar." The Christian Classics Ethereal Library says of Epiphanius, "He was lacking in knowledge of the world and of men, in sound judgment, and in critical discernment. He was possessed of a boundless credulity, now almost proverbial, causing innumerable errors and contradictions in his writings." Even the Preterist website Bible.org says of these statements by Epiphanius, "Unfortunately, Ephiphanius is also another example of inconsistent credibility in historical matters, in one place, for instance, making the unusual claim that Priscilla was a man! Therefore, this witness, too, must be taken with a grain of salt."
There is also a document called the Muratorian Canon, which is usually considered to have been written in the late second century. But what do we actually know about the Muratorian Canon? It is only a single sheet from a codex style manuscript. As this single sheet obviously does not contain the entirety of the original document, it is called the Muratorian Fragment. And the codex in which it is found is called Codex Muratorius, or sometimes the Muratorian Manuscript. In the nineteenth century this manuscript was examined in detail by Brooke Faust Wescott. This is the same Wescott of Wescott and Hort fame, who has pronounced favorably on manuscripts that numerous others, including the writer of this paper, completely reject. But here his judgment was exactly the opposite. He wrote concerning the "Muratorian Fragment:"
"The fragment from Ambrose (De Abrahamo, 1. 3. 15) which follows the Fragment on the Canon furnishes a fair criterion of the accuracy to be expected from the scribe. And by a remarkable accident the piece is more than usually instructive, for the whole fragment is repeated. Thus we have two copies of the same original and their divergence is a certain index of the inaccuracy of the transcriber which cannot be gainsaid. The second copy differs from the first in the following places:... [Here Wescott gave a line by line list of the differences in these fragments.]
"Thus in thirty lines there are thirty unquestionable clerical blunders including one important omission, (p. 11b 29), two other omissions which destroy the sense completely (p. 12a 11 merito, I9 dicitur), one substitution equally destructive of the sense (p. 12a 9 decem et octo for tau), and four changes which appear to be intentional and false alterations (p. 12a 6 scivit, 11 populosu exercitu, 23 filii, 25 sacrificat). We have therefore to deal with the work of a scribe either unable or unwilling to understand the work which he was copying, and yet given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him from regard simply to the supposed form of words...
"On the other hand the text itself as it stands is substantially a good one. The errors by which it is deformed are due to carelessness and ignorance and not to the badness of the source from which it was taken. But these errors are such as in several cases could not be rectified without other authorities for comparison.
"In the sheet which precedes the Fragment on the Canon the same phenomena appear. There is in that also the same ignorance of construction: the same false criticism: the same confusion of letters and terminations. If we now apply the results gained from the examination of the context to the Fragment on the Canon, part of it at least can be restored with complete certainty; and part may be pronounced hopelessly corrupt. It has been shown that a fragment of thirty lines contains three serious omissions and at least two other changes of words wholly destructive of the sense, and it would therefore be almost incredible that something of the like kind should not occur in a passage nearly three times as long. Other evidence shows that conjecture would have been unable to supply what is wanting or satisfactorily correct what is wrong in the one case, and there is no reason to hope it would be happier in the other." ("A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament," by Brooke Faust Wescott D.D., London, Macmillian and Company, 1866, 4th ed., 1875, pp. 522-524. - original not highlighted as shown here)
So we see that the famous textural critic, Wescott, who has been widely criticized for accepting questionable manuscripts, concluded that the scribe who copied out the Muratorian Canon was "given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him," and that the known errors in the Manuscript "are such as in several cases could not be rectified without other authorities for comparison."
But what "other authorities" do we have for comparison? The only known other copies of any portion of this Canon are twenty-four of its eighty-five lines included in a Prologue to the Epistles of Paul. This Prologue is contained in three eleventh century and one twelfth century manuscript of the Corpus Paulinum at the Benedictine monastery on Monte Cassino, and was first published in Miscellanea Cassinese, ii (1897).
So, although many conclude that the Muratorian Canon was written in the late second century, all we really know about its date is that other than a manuscript copied out by an ignorant and careless scribe "given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him," the earliest known example was supposedly copied out in the seventh or eighth century. That is, it came out of the third or fourth century of the Medieval period of ignorance, long after the facts of history had been forgotten, and myth and superstition reigned supreme. As this was around five or six hundred years after the assumed date of the original, any amount of corruption of the original text was possible. No other scribe copied out any portion of this account until three or four hundred more years of this same Medieval darkness, although four copies of that work were made. So the Muratorian Canon cannot rationally be considered historically reliable as evidence for when the Revelation was given.