I feel like there's room for actual 'villainy' in this plot. it's one thing to fleece some rubes, but if they're willing to come to your store, they probably aren't doing too badly unless they're acting on social pressures to spend beyond their means. like sure, the odd idiot or two will bankrupt themselves shopping at your store, but by and large, living off the largess of the filthy rich isn't really revenge, right?
Like sure the money goes to a good cause, benefitting the disadvantaged, but I'd find it way more on-brand to use it to undermine the nobility. either as a class or targeted at the worst offenders. done right you can help out the underclass as well, but using the money to fund charities and orphanages feels like a bandaid solution unless it was a secondary goal in pursuit of some other objective, like bolstering the church or mercantile class.
i mean, yeah, it would have taken more pages than the author probably had to show all that, but hinting that her charity money incidently funded some shifty but scrupulously legal political maneuvering involved in the downfall of some houses wouldn't take up more than what we got here.