They call things they don't like central planning. Whether whatever they are criticizing bears any relationship to central planning or not is not relevant. They don't like it and don't know exactly why. So it suffices to label it central planning.
IMO, cleverest way of handling initial distribution is to force miners to give away money to merchants who agree to accept the currency.
People don't volunteer to give away significant amounts. You need to compel them.
I fail to see why you object to this being called central planning.
They post self-contradictory statements such as the following:
You are in error, you made up the contradiction because you project your own frameworks onto others. You can't abandon your implicit assumptions.
Note that R&D, business strategy, and marketing would require some sort of centralized planning. There is a manager of a firm. She is the central authority.
Central planning does not mean any delegation of planning or the existence of hierarchical elements in planning, but that force is used to suppress markets.
(Use of female pronoun intended to piss off libertarian fundamentalist nutjob. Ignore button now in use.)
I prefer a point by point refutation myself and let my opponent discredit themselves by demonstrating rejection of logic.