You base this on what?  People read your first post but you leap to unsupported conclusions because of a misunderstanding of terminology.
1 address =/= 1 wallet =/= 1 person. Due to the way that Bitcoin creates transactions most wallets will have more than one "funded" address.  They will also have addresses with a mix of value (some larger, some smaller, some left over change so small they may never be spent).   You assume that because there are 46 million non zero addresses that means there are 46 million unique entities and 95% of them have less than 1% of the total coins.  No it only means that there is a huge amount of spam in the network.   Most of those outputs below 1000 satoshis will never be spent and come from a period in time when the network had no anti-spam provisions.  As an example one company would send betters a single satoshi for each losing bet to provide confirmation that the bet was processed and lost.  Millions upon millions of them.  You treat each of those spam transactions as a single PERSON!




For the sake of the argument lets assume the distribution is as bad. You also indirectly assume that distribution won't widen.   At block 1 a single person owned 100% of the Bitcoins and now that is no longer true.  The Bitcoin money supply is ~$4B. The total wealth on earth is $263T.   Bitcoin is roughly .001% of the total wealth and is used by more than 0.001% of the planet.  

The rise in value of the Bitcoin money supply is directly linked to a wider distribution.   There is no scenario where Bitcoin will be worth tens of trillions of dollars and the same x people control 62% (your claim) of that.   It is a self solving problem.  Either the distribution widens (though commerce, speculation, and yes theft/scams/fraud) or the system won't increase in value.