IMO it depends on what you see as the point of business and entrepreneurship. I don't see money as the goal, but rather on creating great things. So Buffet wouldn't even rank for me, while you would have omitted Musk's closest competitor - Thomas Edison.

Put another way, if in 30 years Musk has 10 trillion in wealth would seem, to me, to be much less relevant than if he succeeds in making humanity a permanently multi-planetary species.

Advancing humanity in so many different revolutionary fields all at once is something that had not been achieved in a very long time.

I get what you're saying, but I also think you're being reductive in devaluing wealth creation.

Why is a company worth more today than it was five years ago?

Because it's generating more revenue, has more assets... is better at doing whatever {company thing} is.

One can argue that (a) {company thing} isn't good for humanity at all and/or (b) a company which generates more money isn't really more successful, but merely a side effect of capitalist valuing.

And maybe...

But I'd say there's a pretty strong argument that Buffett is worth what he is because BH made multiple companies very much better at doing what they do. In the same way that Ford or Walton made their money by building companies that did what they did better.

And I'd add in the perspective that science and discovery without engineering into mass application is... a hobby with limited impact. The real litmus test is "Can you use this to improve many people's lives?"

And when you do that in a capitalist society, you usually have a chance to make a lot of money.