What is a fact is that we know that one person (an insider) now owns 11% of all the coins in circulation (almost a third of the instamine), which were either instamined directly or purchased directly from someone who did, and not out of broader "distribution". At best, "some" of the coins were distributed. But neither you know nor anyone else knows how many, to whom, and where those coins are now.
An "insider" sounds nefarious, what is an insider in this context?
Would it be better for the distribution if this large owner bought already distributed coins from late miners / adopters than if he bought from an early miner / instaminer? Or would it have been best if he didn't have bought at all? Or bought only little?
I make no comment here about whether that is a good or a bad ending point (although I agree with G2M on the separate issue that voting as a mechanism fails to be useful when an individual actor's vote share approaches 50%). My point is, it provides actual evidence that this "distributed among the community" statement is at best misleading with respect to approximately 1/3 of instamined coins. Of course on its face the statement is speculative or, if presented as fact, false, since it is unknowable how or where the coins were "distributed."