Any common user of the network that is unfortunate enough to get caught up in this scheme would lose their money. And the long term value of the network would most likely plummet, but in 2013 it didn't for some odd reason :)
In that case, the select few owners of these coins could dump their holdings to buyers who are otherwise unaware of these large numbers of "hidden" coins. The owners make good money, the buyers overpay.
After that, it would be up to the core developers and the new holders of the coins to make the Bitcoin ecosystem a valuable place to exchange money. If they do that, then the coin will survive all that inflationary volume.
If the oligarchy never dumps, then they've just aided Bitcoin price support.
A coin does not equal a vote in Bitcoin version support, only hashing power does.
But de facto, I suspect wallet size is correlated with hashing power.
[0]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321630.msg3445371#ms...
Any player that directly owns 51% of the hash power, rather than just pooling, would similarly be economically incentivized to avoid such double spends, as they provide very little payout, while undermining confidence in the protoocl.
Seems much more benign, but is far more insidious, IMO.