Take ETH/ETC, if you had ETH when there block chain forked, you had just as many ETC. This is almost the same.
It is actually not even remotely the same, for better or worse. Giving equal amounts to near-dust as large balances enormously changes the distribution.
In the sense of being a snapshot of a single block, I would assume that part is correct but I wasn't around and haven't looked closely so I can't be sure.
This is accurate, including the 'for better or worse'.
The goal of the CLAM distribution was to get CLAM into the hands of the largest possible number of people in the crypto community.
At the time, the best representation of that group were the networks BTC, LTC and DOGE (all other networks were insignificant by something like an order of magnitude).
Unfortunately, the distribution of Bitcoin (especially at the time of CLAM's launch) resembled what in 'altcoin' parlance would be called an insta-mine.
Of course, this 'insta-mine' occurred over a quite long period of time during the nascent early years of BTC, as opposed to a strategic operation as in a scamcoin.
There was talk of simply hand-eliminating coinbase outputs and/or specific known addresses.
However, that solution was untenable and subjective.
Distributing based on addresses introduces secondary problems, however.
For instance, gambling services and faucets often create a large number of outputs/addresses.
The elimination of small outputs (using the objective measure of the network's dust parameter) was introduced to help limit this issue.
The choice to base the distribution on addresses was an imperfect attempt to distribute the funds in an even manner to the widest possible set of active crypto users.
Judging by the large percentage of CLAM yet unclaimed, I would suggest the above goal was at least partly met.
