Bitcoin is not even supposed to "increase wealth" for it to be equally or not.
first half of 2009 cryptographers
second half of 2009 the masses.
Whether or not the "masses" chose to adopt bitcoin is an entirely different story. For example an average Joe might have amassed thousands of bitcoins during 2009.
Based on what we've seen so far, adoption looks something like: cryptographers -> early adopters -> suits/elite -> the masses
You are thinking "day one", so it is something like thisfirst half of 2009 cryptographers
second half of 2009 the masses.
Whether or not the "masses" chose to adopt bitcoin is an entirely different story. For example an average Joe might have amassed thousands of bitcoins during 2009.
Before bitcoin maybe top 2% of people owned 80% of the wealth. But after bitcoin, perhaps top 2% would own 95% of the wealth (approx only to illustrate point).
Wealth is not defined by bitcoin. Bitcoin is just one currency among hundreds of them. The "wealthy" have already printed and accumulated trillions of dollars and nothing is stopping them from also buying bitcoin. I also believe that so many of them like Buffet have been buying bitcoin for years.One example for someone amassing masses but not being a cryptographer could be Roger Ver!
Sure he had a business selling IT stuff, but he probably purchased thousands indeed. And he also was extremely fast in registering Bitcoin.com. I have always asked myself how nobody else had the idea earlier. Anyone of the cryptographers must have had an idea of Bitcoin becoming successful. I guess Roger was lucky with that one.