chips have been destroyed by FTDI's attempts to thwart both imposters and competition alike.
Do you have a reference for the FTDI drivers ever "destroying" a chip that didn't present an FTDI USB Vendor ID? I haven't heard of any such thing (though I've seen a couple people claim that non-FTDI implementations trying to use the driver are somehow "legitimate" rather than imposters: "It's a completely different chip with an FTDI vendor code; you can't call that a "clone", can you?" grr.)
I've also never heard of the FTDI drivers hurting a CH340 chip...
Does any of the current Arduinos/Genunos have FTDI chips in them?
They do not. And have not for years.
"Official-ish" Arduino Nanos still use an FTDI chip. Something that claims to be an FTDI chip, anyway. It's not clear that even the official, genuine, Arduino Nanos ever used "genuine" FTDI chips - Nano users who claimed to have bought them from official distributors were hard hit by the FTDI driver updates...