With respect, and without impugning your right to make this criticism, I find your criticism shallow.
I don't know what your particular circumstances are, but I see your view expounded a lot by developers who are getting their salaries from companies that can afford to pay them because they took VC money in the first place.
We are certainly not entitled to Deno for free (although the MIT license is in their best interests for now). I am glad they found a way to sustain its development for the near future.
No, they figured out a way to delete that problem.
VC money isn't a gift. It's a loan.
Edit: There is more to it, of course. It is also entry into a somewhat exclusive network of future investors + customers if you choose your VCs wisely.
Chrome vs chromium etc
We all know how that turned out to be
History repeats itself, the above two are the recent incidents that comes to my mind
So let me make clear here, if I ever start a company based on open source principles and it looks like I am going to get squeezed out of business by Amazon if I keep sticking to those principles I will probably abandon those principles (unless I'm already a billionaire and have something really cool I want to work on anyway) because damned if I would let Amazon beat me. The chance of my abandoning those principles will correlate closely to how bad my finances will be after losing out to Amazon.
On the other hand if I build up a big enough company and start making money off of using open source technologies as a service for other technologists I hope I would support the open source projects from which I was benefiting.
If you want to keep this option open, then make no such promises or (perhaps better) formulate the promises in a way that is aligned to the options that you do want to keep open for the company.
Heck, sign me up. Who wouldn't be up for that? What's the downside supposed to be?