It's a chicken vs egg problem. If only one person had ever mined, or that one person only enable a small number of people to mine, Bitcoin would have likely never grown at the rate it has. We'd call it a centralized system, and it'd be little different from any other centralized currency contrived in the past several decades.
Its electronic transmission and security would be its primary benefits, but its users would still have to trust the miners to make their transactions official. This establishes a finite number of points of failure, all with an incentive to control mining. To me, this is not a very fair system.
Given your dichotomy, I'd point toward "release of mining code solely to get bitcoins to have any value in the collective at all". A thing can only gain popularity organically if it is exposed to the widest possible audience and those who choose to participate feel fully empowered. Distributed systems are pretty good ego boosters: everyone is equal, everyone can run a full node, everyone can mine.
As for the benefit of early adopters, this is true of just about any system. Those who learn something before it's popular, especially in technology, are the most likely to benefit from it as it gains popularity. This is called invention; this is called emerging technology. I personally like the title "Bitcoin consultant".
Which bitcoin programmers? – Nick ODell – 2013-03-02T04:45:30.323
Bear in mind we can't know if there is somewhere a closed source hidden miner which outperforms the public ones. – o0'. – 2013-03-02T11:20:41.940