I agree that an instamine isn't exactly the same as a premine but when 35% of the outstanding coins were created in one day that is highly significant. I'm not sure that one day gap really makes that big a difference compared to just issuing 35% of the coins in the genesis block. It's certainly worth noting somehow anyway.
By that definition, practically every PoS coin out there was "instamined". Most are 100% mined within a week.
Not if that was the published distribution schedule. Fast, yes. Dumb, maybe, but not an instamine.
Dash did not adhere to the published schedule. At all. First of all the difficulty didn't adjust properly due to a (alleged) bug. Second of all the number of coins created was too high due to a (alleged) bug (and the extra coins were not returned the way they were with Bitcoin). Third of all, the future rewards were arbitrarily lowered after the instamine.
That does not apply to "practically every" anything, other than "practically every" instamine scam.
There were two main issues at launch. A LOT of mining power was pointed at the coin (probably because it was the first coin to use x11 and therefore for which you could actually use your CPU to mine it) yet 1) the difficulty readjustment was infrequent and 2) limited to 4x the previous difficulty (both common protections against "stalling" new coins at impossible difficulty levels). These protections allowed a huge number of blocks of significant size to be emitted before adjustments could take place. So yes, lots of coins were emitted at a faster rate than planned. That's a long ways from a fraudulent instamine. Furthermore, there wasn't a block explorer yet to tell how many coins were emitted.
The coins from those early addresses were mostly transferred to exchanges and redistributed within weeks. Further evidence that they were mined by miners, not the dev. You also can't destroy those coins now, after they were sold to new owners. The developers don't even have control over them to do so (and I think pretty much everyone would agree that wouldn't be fair and would destroy the credibility of any developer that proposed it).
Finally, the reduction in rewards was not arbitary, and at that point what difference does it make anyway? Any emissions from any coin simply dilute existing holders. Emit half as much and you dilute existing holders half as much. LOWERING of emissions is a GOOD thing for existing holders of a coin (baring lowering them to the point that miners stop mining and making your coin secure). RAISING them "arbitrarily" would be bad and you would have a case, but that isn't the case here. So anyone buying the coin (the population you claim to want to protect) has had the emission rate LOWER than what they have been promised ever since DRK/DASH was available on an exchange to even purchase.
All you have is allegations... no proof at all that the lead dev has massive numbers of coin and until you do, shut the hell up. Launch issues? Fine yes. Instamine? Define it because lots of coins emitted a high share of existing coins their first day/week/month... and no you are entering a pretty slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? What percent over different time periods.
