At this point, it's hard to say what actual distributions of wealth might look like if people start using cryptocurrencies in their daily lives, for example to route traffic over a network. But at the moment, the distributions of wealth are quite nuts. But if there is an overall "unfair" atmosphere in the crypto-economy, it's could make depending on this system of routing kinda suck in the long term, especially if peoples actual livelihoods are under the pressure of massive ad gaps. People "sell out" when they're perceiving some stress.
If we go 'all-in' on this kind of system, it might actually end up creating the same kinds of de-facto power imbalances we see today with conventional social media.
I'm not anti-cryptocurrency either. I actually own a little bit of cryptocurrency. I'm curious about its potential to dissolve existing dominance relationships non-violently. That said, I don't see it as an end. Moreso, I see it as a potential conduit of healthy, non-violent economic chaos.
I also recognize that this strange new alien could be "out of the frying pan and into the fire".
It may just be how it will ever be.
This is why the Finnish central bank's paper on Bitcoin called it a 'monopoly without a monopolist'.
I think the immutability of these kinds of protocols is certainly an improvement over the total control that economic stakeholders have in a centralized server-client architecture, with respect to power distribution.