I disagree. Normal people outside of crypto think even Bitcoin is a ponzi scam and don't want to buy it because the Bitcoiners just want to sell their coins to the new idiots.
Some do, some don't, and in a sense they may be right. Bitcoin doesn't have exactly the best distribution. The first two year were a sort of slow motion instamine, though largely without the questions of integrity or incompetence. The game changed once cryptocurrencies matured to the point that coins trade and have value almost immediately.
And they don't want to be that new idiot. For them it doesn't make any difference whether the coins were mined in a day or a year.
Disagree. Some criticize the two year "instamine" on exactly that basis. More would and do criticize a two day instamine even more harshly.
Well designed coins that are not in fact intended as ponzi schemes should take care not to mine out too far ahead of adoption, and should not do so in a shady and/or incompetent way. That includes Bitcoin. I certainly don't see anything that was incompetent about Bitcoin's early years and very little that was shady about it. At the time, four years seemed like a reasonable adoption window to distribute 50% of the coins. This may have turned out to be wrong, but it was not unreasonable. Two days is unreasonable.