I must confess I am increasingly aware I misinterpreted the intention of your OP. Honestly, given your demonstrated acuity, which I am unaccustomed to, I am not particularly surprised, but also note that to my credit this does not affect my considerations of your work.

"Perhaps you could state some scenarios and I will attempt to respond to each in detail."

I am incompetent to do so, and this is the core of my thesis: we can essay to consider the known unknowns, but the unknown unknowns are lurking in the outer darkness to lay waste to all our hopes and dreams nonetheless.

"Totally destroyed the future of Western civilization."

One of the central pillars of the free market is that fraud is not payable. In the aftermath of the meltdown coming, it will be all but impossible to claim this phase of that event is not utterly fraudulent. Market disruption that will be, but the West is plenty skookum to weather such a gale if it's overlords so desire. My fear is what they actually do desire, as it's not desirable from the standpoint of the common man, which is grossly apparent from the machinations undertaken to drive us there.

"I could elaborate extensively on why influential actors have no economic degrees-of-freedom to deviate from the Nash equilibrium."

A substantial part of my thesis is that folks apparently influential aren't all those influential. A significant actor may well presently be herding sheep in Kazakhstan. Eight years prior to the beginning of the Mongol Conquest Temuchin was not a powermonger, but an inconsequential shepherd stinking up the steppes.

What data is consequential is yet ineffable, as is the identity of the individual butterfly that flapped up Katrina.

"Proof-of-work is decentralized and thus very difficult to disrupt."

I refer you to USG warnings that the national electrical grid is susceptible to utter destruction by ~a dozen dedicated insurgents, which would effectively eliminate that PoW.

"Apologies if my prior post came across as hubris. I’m just a bit frustrated with not being able to impart all the details I what I have formulated in my mind (due to lacking time to communicate and apparently the volume of communication which would be required) and then being dismissed with the typical mayonnaise logic of “everything is random” so it is hopeless to try to unveil deterministic chaos."

I apologize in turn for dismissal of the estimable achievement in rational understanding you have undertaken with no little success with such drivel. I am incompetent to convey better that nothing is actually random, but that we are curious monkeys with gleams of understanding in our eyes rather than colossi striding across the galactic void wielding power in one hand and wisdom in the other. Don't feel bad I accused you of hubris, because no one is more accused of that by me than me, and no one has more reason to be humble than I.

I cannot fully express my gratitude that men like you exist today, apparently thirsting for criticism they yearn to be improved by, not sticking to their guns no matter what, but neither abandoning them until certainty they should convinces them. Right or wrong, that's the right road to reason.

Thanks!

Edit:

"Again I reiterate my point that Bitcoin as a functioning blockchain has only existed for a decade thus far and probably less than a decade more to go before the completion of the critical (de-)adoption/maturation phase of Bitcoin’s role in the world domination plan I have posited."

I reckon BTC is likely, as you yourself point out, to be part of larger plans stretching further back in time than BTC itself.