Start further back. You need to defend that allowing that much money to accumulate in any person's hands is indeed a "perverse systemic bug".

The default framework is one of private property. If you make it, it's yours, and (modulo taxation), nobody has the right to take it from you. In that framework, it's not a bug that, if someone makes a billion dollars, they can accumulate a billion dollars.

So, do you reject that framework? If so, on what authority? Given that it's the default framework, "I reject it" doesn't cut it. "I think it's immoral" is slightly better, but you need to demonstrate that someone accumulating that much money is more immoral than taking it from them would be.

Or are you claiming that it's immoral for any one person to receive that much money? In a free economy, if others voluntarily exchange that much money for what the person supplies, why is it immoral? What is your moral authority for claiming that voluntary transactions are morally wrong, just because too many of them go to one person?

Since we’re playing this game, prove to me there exists a default framework. Further, prove to me that said default framework is one that includes billionaires, the concept having been utterly alien throughout the vast majority of human history.

Any system that allows more wealth than is necessary to accumulate into one pair of hands while another pair hasn’t enough food is inherently immoral.

Also you’ve never, not once, been operating within a free economy… the only people I’ve met in life who have witnessed such an economy have gone to extreme lengths to escape it. Or they’ve died.