By arguing that XMR's mcap is miniscule, you are argue against your point. Your logical point can only be that it is relatively near to free to acquire some significant % of XMR's mcap, and afaics whether the proceeds of the wealth effect are distributed to the person who obtained coins cheaply via selling a premine or by selling coins bought or mined near to free, then what is the operative difference?

The one argument you can make is that everbody has an equal opportunity to obtain coins at the same very low price; whereas, in a premine only the controlling group can obtain them for very low cost (not free because you must factor in their costs of development, promotion, etc) while everbody else has to pay a market rate which may be higher or lower than the controlling group's initial cost.

I think really your only logical complaint is embodied by the term "shitcoin", which I assume you mean to infer that controlling group had nearly 0 development costs and I could suggest then that the more accurate term is "copycoin". But wasn't Monero a "copycoin" at the launch when the core devs mined the heavily front loaded debasement curve (with thus less competition and relative hashrate difficulty per block reward).

I don't see much merit in that line of argument. Rather I think it is more useful to point out that Monero has a claimed 80+% code rewritten, and it apparently refined Cryptonote implementation. Refinement btw, is precisely what I asserted that leaderless organization excels at. Yet you won't find leaderless organization doing radical innovation (because by definition there is no leader who can take the bull by the horns), thus Monero will probably forever be not much more than a "copycoin". That is in a nutshell why I am not working on Monero, because copying bores me to tears. It is not a knock against Monero's importance, rather just the point that I like to create new technology. And I will challenge you to call anything I do a "shitcoin" or a "copycoin".

Peace.