This statistic scares most people.  This unfair distribution of wealth is a natural concequence of our existing monetary system.  Those with money can use it to, more easily than someone who doesn't, make more money, all by doing little work of utility other than choosing what to invest in, compared to another individual.  It makes it hard for an individual to compete with larger corporations, which reduces competition and innovation.  Since, in the Registry, the cost of a utility is a function of supply, adding more supply by competing with an already large supply makes the cost of your utility more affordable otherwise, providing an incentive to accept competition when you are a competitor.  In todays monetary system, individuals can charge whatever they choose for a utility to take advantage of people and optimize their profits.  In the Registry, you cannot post more time than you have available for a utility, but if you still do not want to give it up for that amount, or there are multiple people competing for the same scarce utility, the purchaser must entice you to either give it up, or pick you over the competitor.  The only way to charge more is to actually spend money, which converts it to cost of goods, which you could then convert back to money.  This distributes wealth naturally, instead of having rich hoard their money.

So this begs the question - who would be the most rich?  It would be those with the most charge and value who has the utility that is the most expensive that everyone wants, frequently.  As it should be, as this person is satisfying the needs and wants of most people compared to everyone else.  If this person stopped doing what they were doing, this would be bad for society.