it is believed among Gamergate fans

It appears to me that all kinds of things are believed among people highly invested in one side or other of the "Gamergate" flap, and that being so believed is not very strong evidence for the truth of anything.

(The people producing those videos say he's "producer and co-writer". Cynical-me suspects that "Gamergate fans" think he must be the real driving force because Anita Sarkeesian is a girl and therefore not to be taken seriously. I do hope cynical-me is wrong. Not-so-cynical me thinks Sarkeesian is more likely to be the real driving force because, other things being equal, a woman is more likely to feel strongly about this stuff than a man.)

the correct way to make money using Arthur Chu

No, the correct way to make money using Arthur Chu is to have him play Jeopardy!. That's been done and it seems to have worked pretty well.

I'm having trouble figuring out what you think is actually going on here. It seems to be something like this: some unscrupulous person decides that their goal is "to make money using Arthur Chu" (why?) and then decides that the best way to do that is via a focus on social justice (why??) but then fails to include a high-status-looking white girl as Viliam's Guide To Exploiting Social Justice People would have told him to and therefore fails, whereas if they had had a high-status-looking white girl as central character the Kickstarter would have made a load of money.

But that doesn't make a bit of sense to me, so probably my different political/social/psychological assumptions are stopping me working out what scenario you have in mind.

(The more likely scenario seems to me to be this, obtained by taking things more or less at face value. Scott Drucker sees that Arthur Chu has raised a bit of a ruckus, and been somewhat successful, by playing Jeopardy! in an unorthodox way; maybe he also thinks Chu is an interesting guy. So he decides to make a little documentary about Chu and his Jeopardy! playing. He contacts Chu. Chu is prepared to play along, but he has got very much into social justice and wants that front and centre in the documentary. Drucker is willing to go along with this because "Chu gets angry about stuff" fits his narrative pretty well, and also because he can't make the documentary without Chu's cooperation. They put up their Kickstarter page, and it turns out that actually the internet has mostly forgotten about Chu and people who are interested in unorthodox Jeopardy! tactics mostly aren't very interested in social justice. To first order, no one wants to back the project. The Kickstarter fails. The end. In my version of the scenario, making a cute rich white girl the central character would have made it no longer a documentary about Chu, hence uninteresting to Scott Drucker; would have been unacceptable to Chu for all kinds of reasons; and would have made little difference to the success of the Kickstarter unless it happened to get noticed by a lot of people who enjoy looking at cute white girls so much they'll fund anything with one in it. That audience might overlap somewhat with the Jeopardy! fans; maybe not so much with the social justice warriors.)

You didn't. The Kickstarter project called him "a spokesperson for social justice".

OK. So what conclusion am I supposed to draw from that plus the fact (assuming it is one) that he never happens to have defended a poor black woman by name in his writings online? I'd have thought it might be "Chu is insincere and isn't really interested in social justice", except that you have said several times that you think he is sincere.