So in other words, Cloudflare noticed the author was running a gambling site, they decided that this was negatively impacting the shared IPs and the author would therefore need to upgrade to a plan that included BYOIP because they would need to use that feature to continue using Cloudflare and they likely insisted on prepayment for the annual plan because gambling sites have a reputation for being flaky and prepaying would have demonstrated the liquidity necessary to continue operating the site at that plan.
Again, Cloudflare could have communicated this better (and maybe they did in parts of the correspondence the author didn't share) but this all seems perfectly understandable, especially given how the sales team kept referencing Trust and Safety (implying the alternative is ending the contract for violating the ToS).
The issue of tainting shared IPs would indeed have suddenly gone away had the author brought their own IP (which would have required an Enterprise plan to do while staying on Cloudflare). Instead the author feigns ignorance arguing they don't even need the features of the Enterprise plan and doesn't acknowledge the issue with sharing IPs while sheepishly mentioning that maybe they're accidentally invading bans of their domain in certain countries by having alternative domains which they of course don't actually need because most traffic comes from their main domain yet somehow having these alternative domains is critical to running their business.
What are you even trying to argue here? The author is being deliberately dishonest in how they frame the incident and Cloudflare's motivation is perfectly understandable. The only thing to take offense with is the communication style which we can only judge based on a select few messages the author shows us. We have to rely on their word after they have already demonstrated dishonesty.