Okay let me explain. If you're part of a community that makes people rich, when that community comes under attack by people from other communities then the rich people from the community that you're part of can invest in the infrastructure or initiatives to protect that community. We all rely on the Internet so we'd all protect that, and we'd all protect Bitcoin since we all rely on that. If you're an early adopter and Bitcoin made you rich then you'd be wise to protect whatever fluke in the system or cheat code you found which allowed you to hack your way to getting rich. The only responsibility you would have is to keep the door open or perhaps open new doors so the successor to Bitcoin can be even better.
Google for instance has given great support to Open Source projects. What makes you think the Bitcoin Billionaires wont fund stuff or invest in stuff which is in the interest of Bitcoin or a free Internet? A free Internet benefits Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
I do agree with one thing you said, some of it is a human problem. Nepotism is a human problem and family currency and family elitism is a human problem. Not everyone involved with Bitcoin has that problem though.
It's not like the oil barons of yesteryear were burying their money in a hole in the ground or anything. They were reinvesting. They were doing what they could to maintain the infrastructure that was keeping them wealthy - which included
both the stuff that society needed, and the stuff that kept society down.
And sure, let's say for a moment that the guys who come out of this thing as billionaires are actually good people - better than the Rockefellers, better than Larry Ellison. Let's say Shamir User A was just shuffling their money around out of paranoia that the Men in Black would kick down their door and take it all.
That's an optimistic assumption, and it buys us, what? Sixty years? Eighty, if they're young and strong and get the expensive medicine early? Whoever they leave their money to, whether family or friends or foundations, we can't attest to
their moral character.
If you say that some people will always have an advantage, then you have to accept the consequence of that creed: no matter how the advantage was initially created, there's no statistical reason to believe that the people who have the advantage a generation later will be good. If you want a Pareto-efficient wealth curve, there's a good argument for designing the system such that it tries to initially distribute the wealth no less lopsidedly than that - if you "trust nobody", you can't trust the new money to create that curve for you.
It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.
According to game theory and mathematics some people always have the advantage in any competitive game. But there is the state of equillibrium. We can create an environment where all of our lives collectively get better even if the people at the top get the medicine and advances first. Honestly I don't care who gets it first just so long as the overall trajectory and trend is better. Our current trend is unsustainable and can't work.
Bitcoin is not going to last for 60 years. Capitalism probably wont last for 60 years. Once we get artificial intelligence, the singularity, and super intelligence, all this will be pointless. The only thing to invest in at that point would be better AI as humans wont even be required to work anymore. But getting from point A to point B is the challenge and I think Bitcoin actually helps get us from point A to point B but it's not the final destination.
All this arguing about who will be the elite wont matter once we enter the age of ultraintelligent machines and I don't think that is 60 years away. I think Bitcoin and money itself is just a means to an end.