I'm not sure what "grifting" means anymore. If I were using the definition much of the internet seems to use, it means "person to the right of Trotsky with some degree of social media following." OP's list doesn't really clear this up, as among the names I recognize, there doesn't seem to be much consistency.
Smash JT, Quartering, and Jon Del Arroz are some of the few I recognize on here. I always thought "grifter" meant scammer or con artist, but if it means "pathetic TMZ-style 'journalist' with little integrity" then this seems to fit. I don't really think they're "grifting" any more than anyone who writes or makes stuff for Buzzfeed, Kotaku, Guardian, Huffington Post, etc. does, so I'm not sure why they're singled out with this label when others aren't.
Upper Echelon Gaming comes off as a centrist midwet reddit dweeb. I dislike his content because it's boring, and he seems to believe (and is regarded as if) he's a legitimate investigative journalist, whereas the others above have to know they're just sleazy clickbait artists. Upper Echelon has branched out into doing "hard hitting pieces" about subjects he obviously knows very little about, and believes he can gain an understanding of after a couple days of reading Wikipedia articles and Statista reports. I still don't think he's a "grifter," as I don't think he's trying to intentionally deceive anyone, and is probably trying to report on things he thinks are important, he just doesn't know how to do it well and is apparently too lazy to figure it out.
Gman Lives is a brittle Australian pussy with a fragile ego who makes very mediocre YouTube reviews of boomer shooters. I don't recall the specific details, as it was years ago (and who cares, honestly), but I recall him being a little weasel on at least a few occasions, banning and blocking people who disagree with him, deleting comments and then reframing them dishonestly to reply to them, whining and acting like a victim, and just generally sucking. Not exactly a "grifter," just a little bitch.
Razorfist is an occasionally amusing, sometimes cringy, frequently obnoxious internet personality whose schtick might be described as "80s metal Rush Limbaugh with Andrew Dice Clay one-liners." I remember him making some surprisingly decent videos about Abe Lincoln and Bill Cosby, but I don't care for his regular videos, mostly because I find the format grating. I guess it's alleged here that he looks at porn and has been creepy online with younger girls, but I don't know how true that is, and I don't really care enough to look into it. Unless he's "grifting" by not being a model Christian or something, I'm not sure how the label applies to him, either.
MoistKritical/penguin0 is someone I don't know a ton about, but if I'm not mistaken, he has at least 10 times the audience of everyone above combined. He makes boring, brain dead YouTube videos about shit I don't care about. I was under the impression he's an openly center-left idiot with milquetoast opinions he shares only because he believes they're "safe" with his audience. I didn't pay much attention to it, so I don't remember all the details, but I vaguely remember him making a funny miscalculation on that by saying he thinks little kids should be able to gender transition. That aside, I don't know why he's on here, really.
Asmongold is a bit like MoistKritical in terms of infleunce I think, but I personally find him to be more relatable and likeable. He seems more humble, ready to admit when he's wrong about something, doesn't form strong opinions without reason, and doesn't seem to take himself too seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if he has some opinions I think are stupid, but he also doesn't seem like the kind of person who would be petty or vindictive because someone disagreed with him. How is he a grifter, again?
I didn't even know Critikal Drinker had anything to do with gaming. All I know him for are mediocre film and show reviews. I guess he sometimes talks about "culture war" shit, and is probably a lot more popular than he deserves to be (I think his reviews are lazy and his opinions are often shallow), but I don't know how he's grifting anyone.
Synthetic Man is the only person on here who makes something I actually go out of my way to watch. He has a fraction of the audience of anyone above (except GMan), and makes videos I actually think are very good. He's open and direct about his perspective, and doesn't back down or act like a pussy when he gets heat for sharing unpopular opinions. He makes a point of being fair in his reviews of games and media, even when they suck and are made by people who he loathes (and who would undoubtedly feel the same way about him). Despite his obviously right wing beliefs, he doesn't really make that the focus of his content. He made a video awhile back explaining why he didn't care for Doom Eternal (which I happened to agree with almost 100%), and it was fairly unpopular. I thought it was great. I'm struggling to figure out by what definition anyone would consider him a "grifter" unless it's the first definition I gave above.
Daniel Vavra is the only person on OP's list who I would consider to be a grifter. He's easily the most dishonest scumbag on there. He lied tremendously about his game, tried to gaslight people, maliciously misrepresented points about the game when confronted, manipulated and backtracked, lied about people who disagreed with him and attempted to misrepresent them as well, and was arguably even responsible for developing his game in a way that would make it difficult for people to refund it when they encountered subversive "woke" content that would obviously piss people off. I strongly doubt anyone would win a lawsuit against him, but if we lived in a fair world, I think there's a good case for what he's done being tantamount to fraud.
