It's actually very simple.

There is a philosophy in crypto that alludes to the existence of an innate legitimising authority. Kind of like "these are the rules, if you follow them, you are legit and if you don't you're not and neither's your marketcap".

It's bogus of course - for 2 reasons in particular:

[1] - crypto is decentralised, there is no 'legitimising authority' neither explicit or implied other than the market
[2] - crypto is unbacked money

What the latter point means is that the tokens are worth exactly zip when they are created. Nor are they regulated, nor is there any “ethical dimension” to their creation (Unless people want to read their own ethical dimensions into it in which there'll be as many 'ethical dimensions' as observers).

They are simply tokens that only have any value if the market says they have.

The emission rate, who got how much, whether the dev changed the properties after launch doesn't matter SQUAT other than they are just another bunch of things to be priced in amongst everything else.

Just as we’ve seen in this thread, they matter to more to some buyers and less to others (and for some still, they are an out and out religion).

I didn't buy Dash because of a "fair launch". I couldn't care less about whether a coin had a fair launch or not unless I think it's going to affect its future value. For two years the same few conflicted trolls on bitcointalk have been attempting to convince me otherwise and for 2 years they've been proved wrong so I'm not exactly losing sleep over it.

Markets always sort these things out because, unlike conflicted bitcointalk pseudo-religious crypto nutcase zealots, they take everything into account and price everything in.

There is no black and white. No "legit" or "not legit". It is what it is and gets priced appropriately.