She could argue that the amount of money changing hands makes it of "compelling public interest", i.e. requires "transparency". A lot of people would probably agree, myself not included.

However, there's an actual lie in the subheader worth correcting, which is that he gave $10M directly to nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6. That claim is contradicted in the article itself even.