You don't give money to the developers when you buy it on an exchange. I think you are confused about this issue. These ICOs are long over.
Here's the twitter post you refer to:
https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/604047740322979840I'm not so sure an armchair commentator should attempt to interpret that dispute. What is your opinion on the technical issue they were arguing about? Why is Gavin correct, in your own words...
I don't see any dispute... no one with eyes and very basic common sense would see one in that exchange. I see an undisputed authority in crypto, the most relevant and (arguably) knowledgeable individual in crypto, dismissing AND despising an "annoying troll" in the form of a self-declared "crypto entrepreneur" with a history of absolute failure in his ONLY enterprise in crypto.
With that in mind, and considering the FACT that no one uses VIA for anything and very few people has even heard of VIA at all, even inside of crypto, after all this time, any "armchair commentator" can make a very educated commentary about the dispute AND the dubious merits of a coin that serves no purpose whatsoever.
But you cited that twitter post as evidence of something, that btcdrak is mistaken for disagreeing with an authority? Many authority figures have been wrong. I could make a list. It is important to dispute authority often.
The salient issue here is whether btcdrak is wrong in this technical dispute. So, in your own words, why is btcdrak wrong?