I never hear anyone complaining about Vitalik holding lots of ETH or Satoshi holding lots of BTC. Although these two coins are not instamined, the dev have a very big advantage by holdings a large portion of the coins.
You must not be listening very carefully. Concerning Satoshi, there is some hope that these coins are "dead":
- Satoshi is dead
- He didn't bother to keep the keys (after all, bitcoin was a game and had no value back then)
- He doesn't want to use them, as that would reveal his identity
So although the concentration of "ninjamine" by Satoshi is uncomfortably high, there is hope that these coins aren't "for real". In any case, contrary to alt coins, there was probably no "dream of greed" when Satoshi started out his crazy experiment.
Concerning Vitalik, it is one of the biggest problems ETH / ETC is facing.
For any monetary system that is more than a niche or a toy, it is extremely problematic if a single cartel possesses more than of the order of a fraction of a percent of the monetary mass. With DASH it is even more problematic as it gives rise, not only to "seigniorage/tax/interest" but moreover, it might compromise the mastercoin/mixer security (too much collusion - imagine that most TOR nodes where in the hands of a few).
DASH is an interesting experiment, because we see "an aristocracy and a state" forming (the famous DASH DAO) on the basis of historical advantages. In the same way, we saw in the ETH/ETC experiment the first genuine failure of the block chain paradigm.
I have the impression that crypto is full of "sociological game theory" experiments the last years.