One that has a fixed block subsidy. After any amount of time, whether years or decades or centuries, it will have been distributed evenly over all that time.
Rather than having 50% distributed in just the first 4 years, and only crumbs in later decades.
I don't see how that logic follows, if this was a fixed block subsidy over the first 4 years instead of just 50%, surely the situation you are describing would be worse ?
There's a huge difference between fixed forever and fixed for only 4 years and then dropping to 0. Bitcoin is closer to the latter (instead of dropping to 0, it keeps halving every 4 years). Gold is closer to the former.
"Egalitarian currency" and "store of value" are somewhat mutually opposed goals.
A stable store of value is always going to socially/psychologically encourage hoarding and other human traits that lead exactly back to inequal distributions of value ("wealth").
A truly egalitarian currency would need to focus on the velocity and acceleration (the current of the currency) curves far more than the value at rest, which likely would be an afterthought.
Rather than having 50% distributed in just the first 4 years, and only crumbs in later decades.
Gold is much more like the former.