“Lots of people want to take it away. They are playing the same old game,” said Mr. Tarachkotelyk, speaking on the veranda of his office, a luxury guest villa known as “Putin’s House” because of rumors that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia stayed there once during a visit to Kiev. “Yanukovych has gone, but an army of bureaucrats stayed behind. All they think about is how to steal for themselves.”

But while fuming against greedy, inept politicians and officials, Mr. Tarachkotelyk has himself been besieged by accusations of thievery and incompetence.

“Who is this person? He is a nobody,” said Mr. Syrotiuk, the legislator. He described Mr. Tarachkotelyk as a “numbskull” and said his principal goal was to keep control of the cash flow generated by ticket sales to visitors.

On one point, however, all sides in the feud agree: Ukraine’s February revolution is far from finished and needs to deliver on its promise of a clear, fresh start to avoid going the way of the so-called Orange Revolution of 2004 that generated high hopes and then fizzled in a morass of infighting and corruption.

The bloody military campaign in eastern Ukraine against pro-Russian rebels, now in abeyance after a cease-fire agreement, has helped to keep frustration with Ukraine’s new leaders and their tycoon backers in check. And even their most fervent critics acknowledge that President Petro O. Poroshenko, a wealthy businessman elected in May, has avoided the larceny associated with Mr. Yanukovych.

But alarm bubbled to the surface last month when Tetyana Chornovol, a prominent supporter of the protests in the Kiev plaza also known as Maidan, announced that she was resigning as head of a new anti-corruption agency. She complained that her efforts to fight graft had drowned in a “bureaucratic swamp.”