But anyway the definition of "fair" and "wasteful" is going to be rather subjective and really there's no way for someone who works for the company that owns all the currency to answer in an objective fashion.
I'm making reasoned arguments, not offering opinions. Arguments are valid or invalid regardless of who makes them.
I believe his point is that your bias clearly affects how you weigh the evidence for your arguments. I've seen your posts for awhile, and the JoelKatz from a year ago wouldn't be tirelessly defending a new altcoin for which the future method of distributing the currency is not public knowledge. He would also be wary of an implementation that does beta testing in a centralized manner, without full release of the source code, in which a centralized body initially controls all the tokens (and presumably will continue to do so, at least with a large portion of them, for a long time after the beta phase is over).
A phrase like "transparent after the fact" will never sound reasonable when the mechanism you're describing is hidden from your audience. Such statements lack verifiability and are therefore not part of a reasoned argument to anyone but your (current) self. That this logic is lost on you seems to be as good an example as any for the dangerous effects of conflict of interest.