I don't see a point in keeping less than 1M sats on each address. There are currently 10M addresses with $1,000 or more bitcoin. Maybe the number can go up to a few hundred million addresses for the coming decades considering the natural distribution of coins.
Discussion
i have started to pay attention to UTXO sizes also
somewhere between 1M and 2M each... i fanned them out a little while ago and intend to always use coin selection and coin control in detail whenever doing on chain in the future
probably should install Tor on my mini pc as well and keep the location origin hidden when i do transactions also, though i think it is at best probabalistic how well attackers can observe this - no idea what proportion of nodes are probably just there to surveill transaction propagation... would be a cool thing to be able to be selective about this and federate with numerous other users so our transactions are always misdirected... i'm sure that further strategies could be devised to make this more effective, like a port 8333 proxy that specialises in obfuscation
Bonus if you use silentpay to consolidate your addys!
nostr:note1hyvytqdgzc5dhutdg35j2u97k0kqktfr04d64vk2ah8ctm40guuqf0anjq
You should really have 1 address per UTxO for privacy reasons.
Most of my UTxOs are over 1m sats & I'm not worried about my smaller UTxOs. I imagine their purchasing power will increase dramatically over the next few years. It's good to have a selection of UTxOs to choose from.
We have no address shortage but the number of UTxOs possible is limited. These ordinal guys created so many additional UTxOs that Pi nodes now struggle to sync.