What evidence is there that this is, in your words, "a poorly thought out money grab"? An emoji texted from an uninvolved party, and presented explicitly outside of the accuser's testimony (so she wasn't cross-examined about it)? If there was some actual compelling evidence of it being an extortion scheme on the phone, don't you think they'd have presented it instead of this emoji?
His defense attorneys also notably presented evidence (more compelling evidence than the emoji, but still not at all conclusive) showing that she might've simply identified the wrong person - in which case you guys have been slut shaming and now doxxing a sexual assault victim and particularly going after the people who point out how fucked up that is.
If it was just a money grab and they're lying about the whole thing, wouldn't you think the witness would also just lie and claim she saw it? You think they invented this story down to the point of having the accuser visibly upset and her friend consoling her on camera right after the alleged incident?
If there's compelling evidence that this was an extortion scheme no one will complain if they go after her for it - they absolutely should go after her in that circumstance. But if that evidence exists, we haven't seen it. They were smart to introduce the texts and let the jury draw their own inferences from the emoji, and they did a great job introducing reasonable doubt (of which there was a lot in this case), but that's in no way evidence of some scheme where they invented the assault to extort TSJ.