A few interesting points about what you said:

1. I may have generalized a bit too much about the wealthy...some of them got Bitcoin and some not. I agree with you on that, even though wealthy people on average have more chances to be exposed to financial revolutions and, on average, they tend to have more financial knowledge and capital to heavily enter a new financial investment. Therefore they accumulate more in less time even though they somehow arrived relatively later at the party.
2. I agree on the fact that Bitcoin changes how value flows into the economic system and I deeply like the idea of 'value generated by the producers should belog to producers'. No money printing, no favoritism, no political bs. Agreed. My point was different, btw. Socialism doesn't relate too much to what I said, so please read carefully next time. I wasn't advocating for social equality, equality of outcomes or some other bs. I do not advocate for things nor 'hope for something to happen', I look at the environment and I make hypothesis, then I test hypothesis agains the reality and see what happens (may be called scientific method?). However, I simply stated that a bitcoin based economy will somehow replicate the inequality schema we are used to see now. Here is why this will happen, in my opinion:
   
   a. Bitcoin OGs and holders from the first 10/15/20 years are the early adopters, they had the opportunity to find out about bitcoin, earn bitcoin and opt out from fiat. Like it or not, they will be the 'wealthy people' in terms of sats and purchasing power. b. People that got into bitcoin later or people with less capital or people with literally no savings were (are and will) not be able to stack sats, save in sats instead of fiat. They may be exposed to Bitcoin technology, run their business with bitcoin etc, however they are not able to save sats because they must spend relatively quickly their sats in order to pay for their current expenses.

The consequence of this environment (that I described in a way that I consider quite reasonable and close to reality [if not, please point out what I got wrong]) is that members of the group (a) will be able to hold their purchasing power, stack capital. Overall they will be value producers that are able to leverage Bitcoin in order to increase their purchasing power over time. This is how capitalism works btw: if you have more than what you spend for your primary needs, you have the opportunity to save, invest in an entrepreneurial activity and create value.

If you cannot deal with your current expenses or you cannot save, you are more exposed to unexpected events, you cannot invest your savings into an entrepreneurial activity, you cannot compete with the ones that have the privilege to save more.

I'm not saying that a Bitcoin system will create the same system that we are used to, because off course Bitcoin enables the producers to be more free and pursue their private and enterpreneurial interests. Off course bitcoin gives freedom to third world countries for their independence from enslaving parassitic states (like most of Africa was enslaved to brits and france economy). Off course you are right in that regards. My answer to the post was relating to the fact that not everyone is and will be able to save as the post author is doing and, moreover, elites (economical elites, not political) will be always out there dominating the economic infrastructure.

I may have a fiat mindset, however this is the current economic scheme and I cannot see a different future for an hyperbitcoinized economy (if will ever happen).

Thanks for you time