Opportunities can be distinguished by their financial capital intensity into two classes: 1) such opportunities that need much money (financial resources) to exploit; 2) such opportunities that need little or no money to exploit. The example of the first class is long term real estate investment that needs hundred thousands or millions dollars. The example of the second class is the situation when you just find something valuable for free.
I bet that the Bitcoin market during the first two years (2009-2010) belonged rather to the second class. I imagine that the situation was as if you discovered one art work from a dumpster bin and you gradually started to realize that it is or at least can be a extremely valuable master work from a great master. You need absolutely no money for that. You need only eyes, hands and
mind.
During the first years the main problem was not to amass a maximum number of Bitcoins but the existential (dead or alive) question. The Bitcoin pioneers lived (and all pioneers live) in the entirely different psychological dimension. All who were aboard then were aware that if the Bitcoin survives all is perfectly good: absolutely no need to be "the first", "the captain" or something. All pioneers are captains.
Last but not least, to amass a very big number of BTC-s was not a wise idea because the more BTC owners - the bigger number of supporters and higher probability of BTC survival.
In this the period 2009-2010 was in sharp contrast with following year(s). The idea of investing all life savings and loan money into Bitcoin
http://falkvinge.net/2011/05/29/why-im-putting-all-my-savings-into-bitcoin/ such idea was unthinkable just a year before.
Or what do you think ? Do rich people had some advantage even in 2009-2010 ?
(for my great surprise, the number of accounts in bitcointalk was more than 3000 in 2010 - quite a big community already)
