If Nakamoto moves any tokens, even a penny, it's going to create a panic that crashes the price quite a bit so there's no telling how much 1M BTC is actually worth because it can't be sold.
Personally I believe the same as Saylor in that there shouldn't be any inheritance or succession. We should just like the coins rot and take them off the market, effectively distributing them to everyone in the network. Very communist.
The limitation of BTC to 21M tokens reduces the utility of the token. Since Sats are already being used, that temporarily resolves the issue, but population will rise, and eventually Sats will not suffice. Of course they can be again subdivided, but Nakamoto's provision of 21m tokens, and a variety of features of BTC that have been replaced by industry, dramatically change the functionality of BTC.
I am incompetent to parse the consequences, but deeply distrust the industry, so innately suspect such alterations are le bad.
I totally agree with this assessment; the difference is my conclusion is that this is a feature and not a bug of the protocol. Printing inflation is a risk, and thus printing zero Bitcoin has the least risk and consequently the least reward. The utility is it provides a stable base for every other cryptocurrency out there to experiment and take risks that a bedrock token should not be making.
On a fundamental level your assessment assumes that cryptocurrencies are in competition with each other, which is in line with the tribalism and greed that we see within the ecosystem. Fortunately for everyone these opinions and projected zero-sum games are absurd from a perspective of open-source opt-in governance structures. Any crypto with a niche that provides a useful service is beneficial to every other crypto. This includes Bitcoin, as Bitcoin is very useful for what it does (not what people way it does; what it actually does).