I did not detect that tone at all. Rather, I interpreted it as surprise that Reitz spent $5k of a fundraiser very explicitly earmarked as being "to support Request 3.0 development" on a computer, when a new computer is not obviously something you need to develop Requests 3.0.
I also didn't get the feeling that the author expected to be paid (in fact, he seems quite clear that he did not).
$30k isn't a huge sum, but you still need some transparency and accounting. A line item saying "it all went to me, to reimburse me for all the work I'm doing on the project" is fine, but you still need the line item so people can evaluate it.
The article does raise some good concerns of whether he claimed on the donation page to work on things he wasn't personally going to do. I just think a few of the article's angles are pretty flawed and uncharitable.
I've had people stalk me, much like this post, and demand I give a line item breakdown of where the expenses are going.
This is a huge problem for the ecosystem since we are being left with the no-hopers who are unemployable for a reason. And the corporate funded developers who have a huge conflict of interest.