~snipped
The issue for me with decentralization is that there is a risk individuals remove middlemen in their operations and by that cut in the available social layer. The removal of that support was in fact the increasing disbalance I was describing.
Well, I don't see any special function middlemen proffer apart from offering services for rewards. They too can find another niche if what they're into snaps them out of it. No one remains in a company if it folds up or dies from the reality of it. They move on and eventually settle in on other engagements. You know, before some establishments started making use of robots for their services many people thought that would be the end of earning from certain jobs. That isn't the case now. Those seemingly affected by robot replacements have moved on to even better things. So, for me decentralization is a gift; not a curse.
Rich people are also buying into Bitcoin and will have more units compared to ‘regular’ people. Also they will have more assets to build more Bitcoin using that balance. For me there is no really new dynamic in Bitcoin to change this.
Again, just a few rich men actually. Most are still skeptical about Bitcoin, at least in public. Now, look at it this way – Anyone who isn't prudent in the little they've won't be in the much they will have. Early adopters got Bitcoin for almost nothing. So, if they sell off and the rich buy them at a higher price; it's expected that the early adopters should have enough to diversify their portfolios and get into other businesses or buy back their Bitcoin if they truly know how to trade and earn. That's also a way of creating more wealth for themselves, don't you think so?