EDIT: Yep, it does - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Business_model
The redirect / social button blocker with the "allow once" option is really pleasant.
Personally I see it as a good choice. I don't have a problem with ads themself, but with aggresive or harmful ads. So educating the companys to use better ads is good for the users.
Some of this money is also used to fight law-suits, keeping ad blocking legal (at least in germany ), something a free solution like ublock origin can not do.
 https://www.golem.de/news/adblock-plus-olg-muenchen-erklaert... (german)
The core of the lawsuit was about Eyeo's business model specifically, charging for being listed in a whitelist. This of course does not apply to uBO.
But imagine if uBO was used by 90% of all Users, so the big publishers would notice and lobby to get ad-blocking banned, there would be no one to defend it then.
Or if google took over ad-blocking by making it build-in in chrome (and of course whitelisting it's own ads).
edit: just realized you're the ublock author! I didn't mean what I said as an insult to you (like you wouldn't care to defend adblocking). I just think it might be beneficial to have a commercial player in ad-blocking (that isn't google) from time to time.
For the huge sites, a cut of the ad revenue is taken, more or less as for any other ad network/service really. The full info is here https://acceptableads.com