No, let me explain this again. We did not release anything. The original developer released it, and then, after several days of odd behavior, we kicked him out. Not for that specific thing, mind you, but if we had known about that at the time, that would certainly be another good reason to kick him out. (In hindsight it isn't surprising at all.)

In fact, after taking one of the things we told people was that we weren't that familiar with the code and it could contain back doors or bugs, they should be careful. It was very much a use-at-your-own risk situation and disclosed as such. (This was borne out to be a valid concern in September when an exploit was used to attack the coin.)

I'm sorry but there is simply no comparison between something a former developer did that might have given him a discount on mining at most 1% of the coins (but did not affect the rate of mining at all), and an instamine done by the still current developer that massively wrecked the entire coin-distribution schedule of the coin, followed by changing the schedule again later.

I realize you are trying to create an equivalence here for advocacy reasons, but first of all there isn't one and second of all, they are two independent coins and sets of issues. This method of trying to defend the instamine by pointing to different flaws in a different coin is frankly silly.