If I understood you correctly, you think, that one coin distributed to each person on earth would change, that poor people are poor.
I think, this will not change anything. You cannot make poor people get rich (or at least wealthy) with this methode.

Ok, let's do some math.
Lets's assume, that Satoshi is a really nice person and donate his 1m btc to create a new currency which is worth 1m btc.
With the current price of about 4000$ per Bitcoin, the market cap of this new coin would be 1,000,000 * 4,000$ = 4,000,000,000$.
At the moment there are about 7.5 billion people on earth. When each of them get one coin, this one coin would be worth 4,000.000.000 / 7,500,000,000 = 0.53$.
This calculation does not include the cost which would be needed to give each person one coin. If you would also calculate those costs, every coin would represent a big debt.

So, this would not change anything. Even with a price of 100,000$ per BTC such a new coin would only be worth 13.33$.

The new currency you want to spread out need to have a significant value to change anything. But this value does not come from thin air. Someone need to invest in it to give it the value it needs.
Just giving one coin to each person would not give this coin any value.

As much as I would love to see a better distribution of wealth, in the real world this will never happen. And unfortunatly this idea cannot work.
But prove me wrong. Maybe you have a better idea to give this coin the value it needs.

Why should Satoshi use his 1m btc to make this idea a reality?
Why should anybody waste his money for this idea?

What would be the result?
Everybody on earth would own one coin of a new currency.
This will not invalidate the old currencies.
Rich people stay rich, poor people stay poor.

I don't see any benefit for this. Or am I missing something?

I noticed that the signatum.io website has crashed and that people are now complaining about issues with their personal wallets on reddit, steemit and bitcointalk.

Cryptopia gets bashed whenever a coin has issues. People tend to talk shit until the problem is solved. The Cryptopia team have to solve a lot of problems that the coin developers should be solving - that is why some coins get delisted after the initial problem is solved.

Cryptopia has only recently grown to a big exchange. To some of us it is more like a big family.  Longterm members like myself are protective of this exchange.

EDIT: I notice that Cryptopia also now have issued an official response: https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/News

Forget about the wallets and coins.  Your thought experiment can be simplified.  Simply ask yourself:

"What is the most cost efficient and most effective way to uniquely identify a single person such that nobody else can pretend to be them and they can not pretend not to be themselves?"

Identification papers (passport, drivers license or national ID card, etc) can be copied, stolen, or faked.

The only answer I can come up with would be to require that the person be physically in your presence and that you find a way to reliably take a DNA sample from them.  Then fully sequence that DNA and store a hash of the result in a database.  Compare the results of each new person against all the results in your database.  Note that you may run into a problem with identical twins (triplets, quadruplets, etc).  In that case, you might require that they all be present together at the time of DNA extraction, and that if any are missing they will be excluded from the offer.

Obviously this would be a difficult and expensive thing to accomplish, but as a thought experiment it's the most reliable method I can think of.  You could reduce the costs if you were willing to accept that some people will be able to take advantage of the system.  How much effort and money you could save would depend on how much risk you were willing to accept of people gaining access to multiple wallets.