The numbers and the design of a cryptosystem aren't my opinion, and dash's faulty design using those standards isn't opinion--
This sounds like your implying either that Dash has a faulty design, or that the instamine was by design.
Either way, please enlighten us with some facts. As I've said before, you would be doing Dash a favor.
I'm saying that the launch was, by the standards used for cryptosystems to create the most decentralized emissions as possible, (time, rate, ect.), bad in comparison with other coins.
There are facts (timing, false promises, absence of windows miner) that lend themselves to this being intentional, but either intentional or not, the result is a coin that is very likely centralized when compared with coins using better methods to assure a wider group of miners over a longer period of time. Again, the user is forced to play the odds with cryptosystems, and coins that have huge emissions over short time-frames offer the worst odds of decentralization.
Disagree. Prove to me that, as of the time you write your next post and continue to bump this pro-Dash thread, that Dash is centralized. Don't forget, I told you in the other thread, my grandmother runs a Masternode...

If you disagree that a system that uses a shorter time-frame to mine more coins is more likely to be decentralized than a coin that uses a longer time-frame to mine less coins, you are logically challenged.
As for proving dash is centralized, you are requiring me to trust that it isn't, and that's the problem. Given the launch, it makes it less likely than most POW coins, but no one can say beyond a shadow of doubt if it is or isn't, but if forced to bet my cash or my life, I'm going with the one that offers the best odds--dash doesn't.
You can choose to trust the dash devs and those that claim the coins were redistributed, but don't lie to yourself, or to anyone else, and argue that that is the most probable or likely case.