Just stumbled upon these really insightful, spot on articles on modeling cryptoeconomic protocols as complex system - part 1 and part 2.

And the paper mentioned therein, "Foundations of Cryptoeconomic Systems".

Excellent introduction to the matter that I highly recommend to everybody.

Peer-to-peer shared ledger crypto-networks and data coordination protocols constitute the technological foundations for the building of the institutions of tomorrow. They provide the basic conditions necessary for making possible the things, infrastructures, tools and instruments required to design, organize and re-structure our world in such a way that it aligns with the circumstances and facts of reality as such in making coherent sense in a meaningful way, such that we can collectively act upon and organize around. Decentralization, censorship-resistance, mitigation of central points of catastrophic, cascading and/or systemic failure, distributed and diverse knowledge and expertise as mobilized for some specific purpose or towards a clear, shared goal, etc., etc. 

A really illuminating and worthwhile talk/lecture on the collapse of complex societies and the cost of complexity by Dr. Joseph Tainter who specializes in these very subjects.

What we are facing and need to approach the right way is complexity and complex systems. Organizational complexity and managing complexity are some of the central problems/issues that stand before us. The 2008 subprime mortgage crisis may have been the key event which woke us up to this reality as it can be said to have been a failure in organizational complexity, a certain blindness to what we do not know or expect, a habitual reliance on axiomatic formulae, recipes and inert assumptions. As explained in the Cynefin framework, complex is not the same as complicated, the latter being the domain of expertise and niche specialization (e.g., engineering, where complex usually requires ecosystemic rather than engineering approach). In complexity we're forced to deal with "unknown unknowns". Our approach would necessarily be heuristic, ad hoc and inter-disciplinary, gently probing out what works how and the reactions that we provoke in response, learning and adding more information as we go.

Or as somebody's T-shirt was saying at one Tezos meetup some time ago: "This field is inter-disciplinary. Have some epistemic humility or else you may sound like a moron." In other words, it's more important to ask questions than be 'right' about anything (William S. Burroughs described/recognized what he called "the ugly spirit" of evil possession in how it just always HAS to be right).

Anyway. Just a bit of commentary to the above linked articles and paper for the moment.