That is a silly question to ask. Even if a denial is made, if it was done competently, it can't ever be proven. If an honest but lawyerly answer is given about not having "deliberately funded" any addresses, it can't be known whether any of the decisions made about the snapshot were influenced by existing holdings (i.e. you happen to have a large number of outputs so you design a coin where outputs -> wealth). Furthermore anyone who did cheat in this manner probably claimed their coins already or would claim them before any fork (as the current 'whale digger' is now apparently doing).

I've made the point before that the mechanism of the pay-per-output snapshot is incredibly prone to fraud-on-demand and whether or not the fraud actually happened is sort of irrelevant. What's done is done. I just hope that no one ever uses that method again, especially now that even more of the pitfalls are well known. This coin may yet succeed in spite of the original distribution method being weak on verifiable-integrity grounds. I still don't know of any PoS coins with a better distribution method.

re. change

Thanks for the info about the config option! That should be very helpful.