I can tell you I'd happily endure electronic harassment for that much money, especially with experts telling me there's no risk of physical harm.
I think you're understating the effects of continuous harassment and repeated death threats and so on against her, and overstating the certainty with which anyone can say there's no physical danger.
That's still $135k
Seems like a pretty decent chunk of change (especially considering that she's still taking donations on http://www.feministfrequency.com/ and getting paid for speaking - both hinging on her continued relevance in the media)
I also think you're forgetting that she can simply change identities online if she wishes (anonymity protects the good guys too!).
Anonymous death threats made against celebrities aren't new (twitter is just a new, highly public, medium). No one can say with certainty she's not in physical danger, but no one can say with certainty she's not going to be struck by lightning either.
The idea that I'm supposed to find more credible those people comfortably hurling innuendo from anonymous hidey-holes, rather than a person who actually signs their name to what they write. I don't even know how to end the sentence.
However, your other contentions don't make any sense to me. Everyone is entitled to their identity; rather, the contention was that devaluing her internet identity wasn't worth the financial gain. The internet makes new identities trivial to acquire and Sarkeesian's wasn't of any particular value before the controversy so I don't think there's any logic there.
Similarly, no one suggested that you should find credibility in anonymity. I tried very hard to make my argument stand on its own by excluding any evidence not verifiable through third parties.