You're very right. I just wanted to point out the massive difference (for the better or worse) of numbers

It shows that the disparity of wealth is even severe in bitcoin market than the real world, which should have been other way around. But I am not surprised because bitcoin has long gone out of the hand of the individuals long time back. I still remember, that bitcoin mining was possible by an individual back in 2010 - 2012. But post that time, we started seeing immense institutional interest on mining and people with deep pocket, started setting up their own mining companies. That eventually lead the small miners out of the business.

The statistics shows that wealth distribution is indifferent - be it in crypto market or be it in real world. Riches will be riches and poor will get poorer. Sad!

This is the nature of human, since very few are good at math and business, especially investment. Let's say you send everyone on earth 20000 dollar check, taking the chance of covid-19 pandemic. In a few months, there will be a few people that gained a lot, and half of the population would still spent those away, some of them even get a debt

Unfortunately, there is no perfect distribution of wealth in any financial system, and it is more than obvious that BTC is no exception to this rule. In the first few years after BTC was created, there were very few who knew it at all, and even fewer who invested in it either by buying or mining it. There was even a faucet promoting BTC by giving 5 BTC for one claim, which sounds pretty unrealistic from today's perspective.

It was early adapters who recognized the potential of BTC during this period, who can blame them for being in the right place at the right time. There were many more opportunities to buy cheap BTC in the coming years (2015 - BTC at price of $200 or lower) but it is not realistic to expect it to remain like that forever.

It is our reality that 10% of the population controls 90% of the world's wealth, and although it is not realistic for BTC to change that, it does give us some hope of changing that ratio for the benefit of small ordinary people who would otherwise never get the chance to pursue their dreams - unless they don't win the lottery.

Most often, there are no separate fiat and bitcoin rich people, they own several currencies at the same time.

in this issue, we don't know who the winner is. because the richest person who holds fiat doesn't necessarily hold bitcoin. they could be one of the biggest holders of bitcoin, making them rich in two places. however, it is very difficult to know this if we do not know who the holder of bitcoin is.

Very eloquent information that people who don’t really like about the maximum decentralization of cryptocurrencies do not really like it. But a rather important question arises, and how many of these richest addresses are correct? How many owners have lost them?

Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if the wealth disparity in Bitcoin is a lot more lopsided than traditional assets. The early adoption advantage is ridiculous, considering how much Bitcoin has grown and that it was only born about a decade ago.

That being said, the comparison is quite moot. Bitcoin is only more lopsided because of the tremendous early adoption advantage and the fact that the rich (regardless of currency) are the same people who have the most capability to create more wealth -- Bitcoin was never really meant to redistribute wealth after all. You can create wealth with it, but if that's your purpose then it's basically just another asset with a few niches.

As for what I think, I think it can be problematic that a couple of whales can exercise a great deal of control over the market, but at the same time, nothing can really be done within the confines of a free market philosophy.

I agree with those who question this comparison. Indeed, if we're talking about wealth distribution in the world economy, the data is more or less expected to be accurate. Here I think it's worth noting that while the topic tries to name it 'fiat's money richest', the article on the Guardian seems to mean the dollar evaluation of all assets one has (including accommodation, stock shares and probably BTC in cases when ownership of big sums in BTC is publicly known). At the same time, the data on BitInfoCharts tells us only about addresses. One address can belong to a big company, and one person can have multiple addresses, so the '1 address = 1 person' approach might be very far from reality.