GrapheneOS is not a cryptography project, like a secure messenger would be. It's goal is practical security, which does depend on practical considerations: without MTE, similar memory security would cost an unreasonable performance penalty, without TPM conventional authentication methods like PIN-code and fingerprint would be vulnerable to bruteforce, without secure boot users would not be able to verify if their phone was physically tampered with in a brief window they were away from it... And if you have closed-source radio chips running their own untrusted software loaded over the air, integrated in such a way they can independently wiretap you, like most phones have, you'd already failed at protecting the user before you start.

Furthermore, Android's ecosystem is structured in a way even the most basic software security concerns, like not running a comically out of date kernel, depend on the vendor's blessing, and sadly most manufacturers, including very desirable ones like Fairphone, hadn't been keeping up with such duties. Porting new kernels to old hardware is an extremely inefficient time-consuming endeavor that will take up most of volunteer time to non-satisfactory results; I can testify to that as a former member of the Ubuntu Touch project, and our standards of security were comically lax.

Again, you CAN lower your standards of security and go for the lesser evil: many people run Lineage or Ubuntu Touch despite known gaps in their security models. But to make that choice, you have to be honest about what you're compromising. If you shut your eyes and plug your ears pretending everything is fine, you'll end up with someone killed because they listened to your uncritical advise.

Also, I struggle to see how it's GrapheneOS's fault choosing the most secure hardware on the consumer market because it might be deemed suspicious to own it. GOS could have chosen the most popular budget Samsung (ignoring the aforementioned security issues) and it would have the same effect. Besides Pixels aren't an obscure unusual hackerphone made in small quantities, shipped from out of the country; it's among the most popular phone brands, advertised from huge billboards I pass on my bus route to university. If they chose something like the PinePhone like Genode, this point would be somewhat defensible.

Finally, what's up with the repeated conspiratorial insinuations about financing? I admit I hadn't looked deeply into this question, even as a one-time small donor, but what are you expecting to find? Is it serious concern about the financial health of a project, or an attempt to manufacture a hysteria around some controversial donor, similar to the Tor Project?