I believe all the abstracts you guys mentioned can be added to the economic calculations which is why game theory is so interesting when applied to the current digital economy.  For instance the coolest variable mentioned is knowing whether or not players are rational or not.  Superrational thinking cannot always go for group thinking and cannot cooperate every round as the individualized more greedy rational thinking will take advantage. Although the number of players is finite the exact number of individuals is unknown.  So both rationalities will battle. Completely irrational players lose quickly.  Superrational thinkers being inherently less greedy will try to use group effort to maintaining the highest odds of winning although having less returns then game-theoretic thinking.  This is why one cannot be proven to be superior in multiple round games with in unknown number of rounds due to the unknown variables of the other players. Example game Superrational thinking is player A and game-theoretic thinking player B

Round one- A chooses cooperate for highest probability and B chooses defect for highest returns. Although both have a degree of selfishness B is statistically more selfish since he is at greater risk the more rounds are played.  
A -1 B+2

Round 2-  A now knows that B logically has a greater percentage of choosing defect albeit an unknown amount.  B vise-versa.  If A chooses to still cooperate then he is at slightly greater risk now knowing B is no longer at 50% probability for defect 50.1% maybe?) B now is the opposite.  B won but has to factor in the endless loop of an endless defect/defect response.  This would be a draw.  In humans B to remain selfish has to change at sompoint.  So does A.  These factors increase exponentially every round.  In a game of chess both players of equal rating theoretically should make the same amount of mistakes or blunders.  The more you know about any game the more you don't have to worry about human thinking. That is why a superior player does not need to know all the emotional nuances of the other player. Only his own. He will win as long as every move is strictly logical.  The only human interference is an external force (for example someone coming over and knocking the board down or in BitCoin government and business interference).  So all said and done you hit the nail on the head with happiness factors. Chess is a non-cooperative game so it cannot use the same logic as cooperative games like these economic games that have team play. However, cooperative games can use logic applied in uncooperative games. If someone is going for highest monetary returns STRICTLY then quality of life theoretically goes down (as aging and death decrease the value of money overtime and overall life value is determined by other factors like family and friends and experiences)  Otherwise to keep the game of money going and guarantee at least some reward every round cooperating is best in my opinion.  The game of life which it seems you were hinting at when you mentioned happiness is the greatest problem we are all trying to solve. Imperfection and irrational thinking throw the math out the window with the economic games.  For instance poker.  One irrational thinker can ruin any chance a rational thinkers (be it Superrational or game-theoretic) to calculate returns and odds each round as he is not employing strategy but just pure luck of the unknown. He could go all in on an 7/2 off suit pre-flop for no reason but the flop is 777 giving him a %100 chance of winning the round.  The random numbers in computer games are the unknown variable.  In human economics then both types of thinkers benefit from the irrational players or self-sacrificing players.  One type being more greedy does not get too concerned about the other players welfare if they are winning each round.  In humans many only "team" up with friends and family and when they fare badly they switch to cooperate.  Some... Few...  team up with the human family and battle the defectors constantly as they take risks protecting the irrational.  That is a whole other topic but in BitCoin I was thinking forks of BitCoin at all are inherently greedy because  supporters (who think they should be the %51 or hate that miners have power) do not want to lose BitCoin core completely because of already held value and if they essentially double the coins their is no immediate risk it seems completely logical.  It does very negatively impact the irrational self-sacraficers which ones without care and concern for group cooperating will see as disposable. That goes for all businesses. The other Superrational thinkers are not affected as it cannot be proven which one is better as the number of rounds is unknown.  That is where human morals, ethics and spirituality plays a part as the true value of life is not determined by physical wealth. Those things cannot be computed but do not make a person irrational which is why I think Superrational thinking will prevail always in life's value but not in tangible physical economic value. That is why we have the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" to have this power one must remove certain moral and spiritual ideologies. But I digress...

EDIT: Poker analogy off. Odds are not 100% as anyone with a poker pair of 8s or higher getting a 4 of a kind on turn and river is possible.