Thank you for your detailed addition of context, but I'm honestly slightly disappointed.

You accuse me of making false claims yet this response doesn't say which claims in either my post or my comment are false. In fact, you don't even quote my writing at all, and the comment is mainly about why you think this project is a good idea.

You say:

I am not trying to prevent people expressing their opinions, but would ask that any speculation (or, for example, digging for the physical addresses of vaguely related entities)

For the people who got the impression I digged through obscure messages for people's private addresses, I didn't. They are the addresses that are publicly listed on the respective websites contact pages. I did this initially to defend these organizations against the claim that they were buying a castle and this was a way to show concrete evidence that they weren't castles. I only later discovered the purchase of this chateau.

You write:

The implication "you got a grant from a foundation that was sponsored by FTX" => "what you are doing is suspicious" is nonsense. [...]

1. Suggestive framing like "they got a grant not long before bankruptcy". The implication is that grantees should have done – in addition to basic due diligence about the FTX Foundation being a legitimate entity and usual anti-money laundering – some sort of brilliant investigation to discover that FTX was going to go bankrupt in a few months because of fraud inside it.

But neither my comment nor my post made this claim. In fact I even wrote:

While she seems like a wonderful person I would urge her and ESPR, in light of recent information, to return the money. We already have a controversial estate purchase and it seems SBF admitted to fraud in this interview. [emphasis added]

It is the recent information about SBF and Oxford that makes it pernicious.
You write:

2. Ignoring causality. For example, Irena was working on the discussed project for years. It isn't the case the SBF conceived this.

I never claimed SBF conceived of this, in fact I explicitly wrote:

Mrs. Kotíková claims that she applied to FTX for a grant for an international education center and simply received it. On the first attempt.

You continue:

Liability. Both the law and commonsense protect you if you took an action in good faith, as the grantees did. Mens rea is there for a reason: to hold off optics-based kneejerk judgments.

I never claimed nor implied that you did anything illegal. You write:

Buying a venue of this size takes time. In this case, it involved multiple checks by lawyers, accountants, and technicians. The grant agreement was signed in July, the transaction was not actually completed and visible in the registry until mid-October. It would have been odd to announce the purchase before the transaction was complete.

Even if you don't want to talk about the project before the purchase, I still feel it could've been disclosed in October, November or December.

You write:

…also, to reiterate, contrary to rumour, the property is not owned by Irena Kotíková or Czech EA association or "EA Prague". Also it's probably worth understanding for people involved, the project is mostly a lot of work, not some sort of leisure spending. 

I never claimed that it was leisure spending and I didn't claim it was owned by Irena, Czech EA or EA Prague, the title of this post is "ESPR should return the FTX-funded chateau" and thats what my post talks about.

Posted here.